IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


m.  12.5 


no 


lu  1^    12.2 

Ui    lili 

2.0 


us 

IK 

la 


140 


I 


L25  IIIIU   iiiii^ 


6" 


J,* 


PhotDgraiiiic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WIST  MAIN  STRfET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14S80 

(716)872-4503 


^f^ 


4!^    4^ 


'^ 


'^'^ 


MHMMMi 


BflMUM 


Mm 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICIVIH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Jr. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


D 
D 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 

Covers  damaged/ 
Couverture  endommagde 


Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaurde  et/ou  pelliculde 

Cover  title  missing/ 

Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 


□    Coloured  maps/ 
Cartes  g6ographiques  en  couleur 

□    Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


n 
n 


n 


Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reli6  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  reliure  serrde  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  intirieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
11  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajout^es 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  6tait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6t6  film6es. 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  6t6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-dtre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite.  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  m6thode  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiqu6s  ci-dessous. 

□    Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 


D 
D 

n 
n 


Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommag6es 

Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Pages  restaur6es  et/ou  pellicul6es 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
Pages  d6color6es,  tachet6es  ou  piqu6es 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d6tach6es 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 


I — I    Quality  of  print  varies/ 


D 


Quality  indgale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  material/ 
Comprend  du  materiel  suppl^mentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponible 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refiimed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  6t6  film^es  h  nouveau  de  fapon  d 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


n 


Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  suppl6mentaires: 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film6  au  taux  de  rMuction  indiqu6  ci-dessous. 

10X  14X  18X  22X 


12X 


16X 


20X 


i 


26X 


30X 


28X 


□ 

32X 


tails 

du 
sdifier 

une 
mage 


9rrata 
to 


pelure, 
>n  d 


The  copy  filmed  here  has  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

Library  of  Congress 
Photoduplication  Service 

The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  Impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  — ^  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 

Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


L'exemplaire  fllmA  fut  reproduit  grAce  d  la 
gAnArosit*  de: 

Library  of  Congress 
Photoduplication  Service 

Les  images  suivantes  ont  AtA  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettetA  de  l'exemplaire  filmA.  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 

Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimAe  sont  film6s  en  commenpant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
dernlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  selon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  filmte  en  commenpant  par  la 
premlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaltra  sur  la 
derniAre  Image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  — ►  signifie  "A  SUIVRE  ",  le 
symbole  ^  signifie  "FIN  ". 

Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  fttre 
filmte  A  des  taux  de  reduction  diff^rents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  Atre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clichA,  ii  est  filmA  A  partir 
de  Tangle  supArieur  gauche,  de  gauche  A  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  nAcessalre.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mAthode. 


D 

32X 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

l»WW1i»i'i'~^ 


THE  LIMITATIONS 


OF  THE 


PREDICATIVE  POSITION  IN  GREEK 


A  DISSERTATION 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  BOARD  OF  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  OF 

THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  FOR  THE 

DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


ALFRED  WILLIAM  MILDEN 

SOMKIUB  FKLLOW  OP  THK  JOHNS  HOPKINS  UHTVUBSITT 


yro^"^ 


BALTIMORB 

JOHN   MURPHY  COMPANY 

Z900 


^.^^ 


\  27  6-00 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


Paok. 

Thb  Gbxik  Abtioui, ,.---7 

OBUQim  PSBDIOATIOir, ^® 

Thb  Pbidioattvii  Pabtioipli  as  thb  Eqt7IVAU»t  of  ah  ABSCBAcrr 

NOTW, 1* 

Thb  Obioih  o»  thb  Ai>VBBBiAi>DATiyB  Ttfb  of  Pbbdioatioh,       -  18 

Thb  Advbbbial-Dativb  Ttpb  of  Pbbdioatioh  ik  (o)  Ci.aiwoai.  Obbbk,  22 
Thb  AsYBBBUii-DATiya  Ttfb  of  PBBOioATioir  nr  (6)  PomvCLAancAi 

Obbbk,      ,  -       - ^6 

Thb  Pbbpobtiohai.  Ttfb  of  Pbbdioatxok  ni  (o)  Glabbicai.  Qbebk,    -  29 

Thb  PBBPotrnoiiAX  Ttfb  of  Pbbdioatioii  n  (6)  Pow-Cr.twiiOAT.  Qbbbk,  89 


OovaLDnoM, 


48 


■?s!i»vj!^;ifl«.-p,'»www^^=*' 


f 


Bebnhasdt,  Q. 

BlJl8B,F. 

Clawen,  J. 

Donaldson,  J.  W. 
JXBB,  R.  0.  ' 

KBeoKR,  K.  W. 

EB^aER-POKXL. 

Kchnkr-Obrth. 
Madvio,  J.  N. 

MlDDLKTON,  T.  F. 
MOMICSXN,  T. 

MoNBO,  D.  B, 
Padl,  fl. 

SOHMID,  W. 

boboemann,  o.  f. 
Steinthai^  H. 

voobinz,  o. 


Cttouxl,  Ch. 
dobhseutkh,  i. 

EoOEBjE. 
ElOHHOBST,  O. 

EuAS,  S. 

FITU.BB,  A.  L. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


OBNERAL  WORKS. 

Wisaenachaflliche  Syntax.  Berlin,  1829. 

Die  attiiche  Berediunkeit.  Leipzig,  1887. 

BeobaohtUDgen  tiber  den  hom.  Sprg. 

Frankftirt  A.  M.,  1867. 
New  Cratylna.  London,  1860. 

The  Attic  Orators  from  Antiphon  to  Isaeui. 

London,  1876. 
Historisch-philologische  Studien,  Vol.  II.  Berlin,  1 861. 
Griechische  Sprachlehre.  Leipzig,  1891. 

Ausf&hrliche  Qrammatik  der  griechiachen  Sprache,  Part 

II.  (Satzlehre).  Leipzig,  1898. 

Syntax  of  the  Greek  Language.  London,  1873. 

The  Doctrine  of  the  Greek  Article,  etc.     London,  1841. 
Beitrage  zu  der  Lehre  von  den  griechiichen  Prapo- 

Bitionen.  Berlin,  1896. 

Homeric  Grammar.  Oxford,  1891. 

Principles  of  the  History  of  Language.    New  York,  1889. 
Der  Attirismus,  Vol.  III.  Stuttgart,  1893. 

Die  Lehre  von  den  Redetheilen.  Berlin,  1862. 

Geschichte  der  Sprachwissenschaft  bei  den  Griechen 

and  Romem.  Berlin,  1868. 

Grammatik  des  homeriachen  Dialektes. 

Paderborn,  1889. 

SPECIAL  wrnKS. 

Eaaai  sur  la  langne  et  t*  ^Uyle  de  I'orateur  Antiphon. 

Berlin,  1882. 
De  articalo  apnd  Graecoe  eiusqne  usu  in  praedicato. 

Amsterdam,  1866. 

Apollonios  Dyscole,  eseai    sur  I'histoire  des   theories 

gnmmaticales  dans  Tantiquit^.  Paris,  1854. 

Die  Lehre  des  ApoUonius  Dyxoolus  Tom  Artikel.    Phi- 

lol.  38,  pp.  399-422. 
Qaaestiones  Lycnrgeae.  Halis  Saxonum,  1870. 

De  articuli  in  antiqnis  Oraecis  comoediis  usu. 

Leipzig,  1888. 
5 


Bibliography. 


OlI.DRIIU.BITB,  B.  L. 
GCTTCMTAO,  I. 

Hjkuumo,  R. 
houwdmio,  f. 
Kallkmbkro,  H. 

u  u 

Matbb,  H. 

Pbookwh,  A. 
SnxxxB,  E.  H. 

fiflOLZ,  FB. 


Amar.  Jouni.  of  Philol.  2,  88  ff.,  8,  218  ff,  9,  187  ff.,  17, 

810. 
De  mbdito  qui  inter  LuoUnMi  l«gi  iol«t  dialogo  Toz- 

■ride.  Berlin,  1860. 

Ueber  den  Oebrsuch  dee  echten  und  woiatiTen  Dutire 

bei  Hf  rodot.  KurUmhe,  1898. 

Ueber  den  eocifttiT-inatnimenUlen  Gebnuoh  dee  grieoh. 

DatiT  bei  Homer.  Burg,  1880. 

OommenUtio  oritioa  in  Herodotum.  Berlin,  1884. 

Jehreeber.  dec  philol.  Vereini  lu  Berlin,  1897. 
ObiervEtionee  in  Ljronrgi  oratoris  tuum  dioendi. 

Freiburg,  1889. 
Ueber  den  Qebrauoh  dee  Artilcele,  inabeeondere  beim 

Pradicat,  PhUol.  40,  pp.  1-47. 
Qenitive  Abeolute  in  the  Attic  Orators,  Amer.  Joum.  of 

Philol.  6,  810  ff. 
Der  attributire  Oebranch  Ton  aMt  beim  looiatiTen 

DatiT,  Wiener  Studien,  toI.  20,  p.  244  ff. 


THE  LIMITATIONS  OF  THE  PREDICATIVE 
POSITION  IN  GREEK. 


THE  GREEK 
ARTICLE. 


A  study  of  the  limitations  of  the  predicative  position  in  Greek 
calls  for  a  brief  treatment  of  the  origin  and  historical  development 
of  the  Greek  article. 

Aristotle  (Poetics,  o.  21)  is  the  first  writer  by  whom  the  pro- 
noun is  referred  to  as  a  separate  part  of  speech.     He  expressly 

makes  mention  of  the  Svofia,  the  f>fjfia, 
the  <Tvvhe(Tfi.o<i,  and  the  &pdpov,  though 
elsewhere  he  includes  the  last  two  under 
ervvBe<Tfio<i.  We  do  not  know  when  the  name  avravvfila  was 
introduced.  Schoemann's  assumption,  Die  Lehre  von  den  Rede- 
theilen,  p.  117,  that  it  originated  with  the  Alexandrian  gram- 
marians is  not  improbable.  He  is  probably  right,  too,  in  assuming 
that  the  separation  of  the  pronoun  from  the  article  did  not  take 
place  later  than  the  time  of  Aristarchus,  the  grammarian.  It  is 
important  to  remember,  however,  that  this  separation  was  not 
countenanced  by  the  Stoics,  who  did  not  fail  to  perceive  that  the 
article  was  in  reality  a  degraded  pronoun.  Under  the  general 
name  of  pronoun,  they  comprehended  both  pronoun  and  article. 
The  Stoic  view  of  the  nature  of  the  article — ^that  it  is  a  degraded 
pronoun — has  won  general  acceptation. 

In  Homer  6  ^  t6  ia  the  commonest  of  the  demonstrative  pro- 
nouns. It  is  a  matter  of  great  interest  to  the  student  of  language 
to  observe  the  traces  of  the  gradual  weakening  of  the  pronominal 
force  of  0  17  r6.  Accompanying  this  loss  is  the  growing  use  of 
o5to?,  8Be,  and  iKetvo^.  The  gradual  weakening  of  the  pronomi- 
nal 0  ij  TO  is,  however,  only  another  way  of  characterising  the 
transition  from  pronoun  to  article.  Vogrinz,  Grammatik  des 
homerischen  Dialektes,  p.  197,  points  out  one  step  in  the  devel- 
opment of  the  article  where  the  pronominal  form  and  the  noun  to 

7 


8  The  Lmitationa  of  the  Predicative  Poaition  in  Greek. 

which  it  relates  are  Heimratflil  merely  by  light  iiarticieH.  Cf.,  e.  g,, 
ij  8^  pv  fxiirvp  (X  406),  ol  Bi  w  \aol  (A  382;,  tA  8'  .  .  .  KtiXa 
(A  383),  oi  Si  e,ol  (A  1),  5  y  fipm  (E  308),  t«J.  U  ol  6<r<Te,  rio 
hi  oi  &fia>  (mepe).  The  following  statistics  for  the  pronominal  and 
articular  use  of  6,  ij,  to  are  quoted  by  Vogrinz  (1.  c.)  from  Stura- 
mer  (Ueber  den  Artikel  bei  Homer,  Progr.,  MUnnerstadt,  1886, 
p.  66).  In  the  Iliad  6,  ^,  to  is  used  as  a  pronoun  3,000  times,  as 
an  article  218  times,  i.  e.,  in  the  ratio  of  14  : 1 ;  in  the  Odyssey  it 
is  found  as  a  pronoun  2,178  times,  as  an  article  171  times,  i.  e.,  in 
the  ratio  of  13  : 1.  These  statistics,  as  Vogrinz  observes,  hanlly 
justify  us  in  claiming  an  advance  in  the  use  of  the  article.  That 
it  began  to  be  used  with  a  greater  de>rree  of  frequency  in  Homer 
can  be  seen  by  an  examination  of  the  later  portions  of  the  Odyssey, 
and  in  parts  of  other  books.  Vogrinz,  p.  198,  on  the  basis  of 
Stummer's  investigation,  illustrates  freely  the  Homeric  uses  of  the 
article.  Some  of  these  may  fitly  be  noted  here.  (1)  With  particu- 
lar words :  Toto  am«To?  (A  322,  7  388,  <f,  62),  ij  irXfidvi  (B  278, 

0  306),  TOP  ffvioxov  (^  465),  tov  iiX^Ti)v  {a  333),  rov  fivdov  (B  16, 

1  55,  309,  T  185),  T^i;  yatrripa  (o-  380),  tA  Swpa  (X339);  (2)  with 
particular  classes  of  words,  as  (a)  cardinal  numbers :  rrjts  fiiv  Ifjii 
(TTixos  (11  173),  rtiv  fj^v  tav  (f  435),  ol  rpeii  (f  26),  ol  Sk  Svw  <tk6- 
■rreXoi  {fi  73),  Ta?  Tr^i'Te  via<i  (7  299) ;  substantivised  participles : 
Toi;  ayovra  (4>  262),  tov  -rrpovxovra  (^  325);  substantivised  adjec- 
tives :  TO  Kp^yvov  (A  106),  t6v  Svtrrijvop  (y  224),  top  apiarop 
(f  19).  TO  fiiXap  Spv6<i  (f  12) ;  ordinals  :  t^  irp&rop,  to  Sevrepop, 
etc.     Cf.  also  to  -irdpot,  rh  irpip,  to  TrpStrBep,  to  trdpoiBep. 

Quintilian  (Inst.  Or.  1,  4, 19)  says  of  the  Latin  language :  Noater 
aermo  articiiloa  non  desiderat.  With  this  stage  corresponds,  iu  the 
main.  Epic  Greek  which,  as  a  rule,  dispenses  with  the  use  of  the 
article.  Epic  use  diverges  from  Attic  at  several  points.  We  are 
familiar  with  the  classification  of  the  article  in  Attic  Greek  as 
particular  and  generic.  Homeric  usage  is  almost  wholly  confined 
to  the  former.  Vogrinz  (p.  198)  gives  but  two  indisputable  cases 
of  the  latter,  viz.,  top  ofioiop  (H  53,  p  218).  Krfiger,  Dial.  50,  4, 
1  and  2,  gives  other  cases  which  may  be  considered  generic.  The 
use  of  the  article  with  possessive  significance — a  not  uncommon 
phenomenon  in  Attic — is  rarely,  if  at  all,  found.  The  substantive 
generally  suffices;  occasionally  it  is  strengthened  by  the  possessive 


.\}U'.«i»J.'iiij<>iii 


Oreek. 


The  Limitationa  of  the  Pmlicntive  Position  in  Oreek.  9 


18.  Cf.,  f.  g., 
>£*...  Kr;\a 
i  oi  Saae,  rib 
ononiinal  and 
)  from  Stum- 
iratadt,  1886, 

000  times,  as 
le  Odyssey  it 
imes,  i.  e.,  in 
erves,  hardly 
rticle.  That 
3y  in  Homer 
the  Odyssey, 
the  basis  of 

io  uses  of  the 
Vith  particu- 
vBvi (B  278, 
fivOov  (B  16, 
39);  (2)  with 
:  T^?  fi^v  lrj(i 
8k  Bvto  <tk6- 
participles : 
ki  vised  adjec- 
rov  apiarou 
TO  Sevrepov, 
>i0ev. 

uage :  Noater 
ponds,  in  the 
e  use  of  the 
its.  We  are 
bio  Greek  as 
oily  confined 
)utable  cases 
Dial.  50,  4, 
}nerio.  The 
I;  uncommon 

1  substantive 
le  possessive 


pronoun.  The  three  or  four  cases  that  may  Iw  vaUh\  arc  incon- 
clusive. Cf.  Krilger,  Dial.  50,  3,  6.  There  arc  a  few  examples 
of  the  adjective  in  the  pre<licative  |K)Hition  relatively  io  the  article. 
The  luses  employeil  are  the  nominative  and  the  accusative.  The 
communeHt  expression  of  this  class  is  iroiop  rov  fivOou  which  occurs 
seven  times,  all  in  the  Iliad.  Cf.,  further,  Krilger  Dial.  50, 10, 1. 
In  passing  to  the  function  of  the  article  in  Attic  Greek,  the 
writer  would  acknowledge  his  especial  oljligations  to  Krtiger  among 
the  grammarians  who  have  treated  of  this  subject.  In  this  depart- 
ment of  his  work,  Ktihner  was  in  no  small  measure  de|)endent  on 
Kruger.  Worthy  of  mention,  too,  is  the  excellent  treatise  of  Dorn- 
seiffen,  De  Articulo,  etc.,  to  which  Kriiger  was  indebted  for  some 
of  his  remarks  on  this  subject.  Viewed  logically,  the  function  of 
the  Attic  article  is  to  mark  the  object  with  which  it  is  used  as 
definite  and  well-known.  The  cases,  not  a  few,  where  no  article 
is  used,  are  best  explained  as  survivals  of  that  earlier  stage  of  the 
language  when  the  article  had  not  yet  come  to  maturity.  Such  are 
et?  dvTv,  and  the  like.  By  reason  of  this  definitcuess  of  import, 
it  is  naturally  used  with  the  subject,  but  omitted  with  the  predicate. 
It  is  found,  however,  in  the  predicate  (1)  in  the  case  of  certain 
words  with  which  the  article  fuses,  e.  g.,  Plato,  Apol.  40  c:  Bvoiv 
yhp  ddrep6v  itrriv  to  redvdvai  and  (2)  where  the  two  parts  of  the 
sentence  are  logically  convertible,  e.  g.,  Plato,  Theaet.  145  D :  Stpov 
TO  ftavddveiv  iarXv  to  votfmrepov  ylyveadai  irepl  h  f.uivBdvei  ti<i  j 
(cf.  Otto  Eiohhorst,  Die  Lehre  des  Apollonius  Dyscolus  vom  Arti- 
kel,  Philol.,  vol.  38,  p.  399 ff.).  The  salient  uses  of  the  article  were 
clearly  understood  by  Apollonitw  Dyscolus.  His  classification  was  as 
follows :— (1)  Kar  i^oxriv, par  excellence,  e.  g.,  o  Troti/Ti^s  =  Homer; 
(2)  Kard.  fiovaBiK^u  KT^trtv,  e.  g.,  o  /Sao-^Xeu?  (ri>v  t^J  (rrparevfiari 
— our  possessive  use ;  (3)  Kar  avro  /lovov  dirKffv  dvatftopdv.  The 
last  is  the  commonest  of  all,  and  in  it,  as  Apollonius  saw,  is  to  be  found 
the  essential  characteristic  of  the  Greek  article,  viz.,  dva^opd.  The 
generic  article  was  characterised  by  him  by  the  word  aop/<rra>8a)9, 
inasmuch  as  it  was  not  limited,  or  defined,  like  the  others. 

Viewed  rhetorically,  the  article  distinguishes  the  subject  from 
the  predicate  in  accordance  with  the  principle  which  has  been 
stated.  While  it  may  be  true  that  it  is  not  indispensable  to  a 
language,  as,  e.  g.,  Latin,  it  is  invaluable  as  a  means  of  gaining 


10         Tke  lAinitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek, 

precision,  e.  g.,  0eo<i  ^p  6  \070s  or  i/yf  ij  ^fiipa  iyipero.  This  is 
clearly  set  forth  by  the  Greek  rhetorician,  Theon,  in  his  Progy- 
mnasmata  (Spengel,  Rhetores  Graeci,  vol.  II.,  p.  83).  There  he 
says :  trpoadeaei  dpdpav  ovkcti  afi^iPo\o<i  yiperai  r)  \e^i<i. 

The  various  positions  which  the  adjective  may  assume  relatively 
to  the  article  in  Attic  call  for  brief  remark.  The  adjective  may  lie 
used  either  attributively  or  predicatively.  The  attributive  position 
is  a  threefold  one :  (1)  ^  cri)  oUla  (2)  17  oUia  ri  o-tj  (3)  ot/eio  17  0-77. 
Of  these,  the  first  is  the  simplest  and  most  natural.  The  second 
is  called  the  "oratorical,"  and  carries  with  it  6'yKo<i  (Aristotle, 
Rhetoric  1407  b,  36-37).  The  third  is  not  specifically  referred 
to  by  Aristotle.  In  the  Orators  it  is  the  least  frequent  of  tlie  three, 
and  has  been  characterized  by  Prof.  Gilderslceve  as  the  "slip-shod" 
or  "negligent"  position.  It  "affects  to  be  easy  and  familiar." 
(See  his  Justin  Martyr  A,  6,  7,  and  review  of  Merriam's  Herodotus 
in  A.  J.  P.,  6,  262,  and  A.  J.  P.,  17,  518.)  An  investigation 
of  the  relative  frequency  of  the  three  positions  in  the  Orators  and 
the  Speeches  of  Thucydides,  so  far  as  the  cat^ory  of  the  possessive 
pronouns  is  concerned,  enables  the  writer  to  make  the  following 
statement.  In  Thucydides  the  first  position  is  the  normal  one,  the 
second  is  exceptional  (three  times),  the  third  is  found  eleven  times. 
In  the  Orators,  the  first  position  has,  as  a  rule,  the  preference. 
The  second  occurs  about  half  as  often.  The  third,  however,  is 
very  rare,  there  being  but  ten  occurrences  in  the  course  of  above 
2,000  Teubner  pages.  The  predicative  position  is  a  twofold  one, 
the  adjective  being  found  before  or  after  both  article  and  noun.  It 
is  by  no  means  restricted  to  the  nominative  or  coKua  redua;  for  we 
frequently  find  the  genitive,  dative,  and  accusative  cases  similarly 
used,  giving  rise  to  what  may  be  termed  "oblique  predication." 

In  studying  oblique  predication,  it  was  found  necessary  for  a 
clear  appreciation  of  the  grammatical  phenomena  to  take  account 
OBLIQUE  '^^  *^*  participle  as  well  as  the  adjective, 

PREDICATION.  *°  ****     ***''  °^  which  Donaldson,  in  his 

classification  of  predicates  as  primary, 
secondary,  and  tertiary,  confined  his  view ;  for  the  paiticiple  by 
reason  of  its  verbal  force  readily  lends  itself  to  the  expression  of 
predication  in  the  oblique  cases,  and  the  adjective  bis  in  this  par- 
ticular assumed  the  function  of  the  participle.    BfJling,  The  Epic 


^.r.fi-giiis^^4w^- 


Greek. 

'^ero.  This  is 
in  his  Progy- 
J).     There  he 

itne  relatively 
jective  may  be 
utive  position 
3)  oixia  17  0*77. 
The  second 
:o?  (Aristotle, 
cally  referred 
it  of  the  three, 
e  "slip-shod" 
nd  familiar." 
u's  Herodotus 

investigation 
i  Orators  and 
the  possessive 
the  following 
>rmal  one,  the 

eleven  times, 
le  preference. 
,  however,  is 
iirse  of  above 
.  twofold  one, 
md  noun.  It 
edtia;  for  we 
ises  similarly 
dication." 
oeseary  for  a 
take  account 
the  adjective, 
ildson,  in  hia 

as  primary, 
paiticiple  by 
expression  of 
9  in  this  par- 
ig,  The  Epic 


The  Limitationa  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Cheek.         11 

and  Attic  Use  of  the  Circumstantial  Participle  (Johns  Hopkins 
University  Circulars,  December,  1897),  has  well  set  forth  the  affin- 
ity between  the  two  in  these  words :  "  The  adjective  represents  a 
quality  at  rest,  the  participle  represents  a  quality  in  motion,  and 
the  difference  between  the  two  is  a  difference  in  the  degree  of 
mobility."  Not  only,  however,  does  the  adjective  assume  the 
function  of  the  participle,  but  the  participle  in  attribution  sinks 
to  the  level  of  the  adjective.  This  degradation  of  the  participle 
is  sufficiently  familiar  to  students  of  English  in  such  words,  e.  g., 
as  "  interesting,"  "  charming,"  and  the  like,  which  are  ordinarily 
felt  as  adjectives. 

The  field  of  personal  observation  in  this  study  of  oblique  predi- 
cation has  been  limited  to  the  Orators  and  Thucydides.  Two 
types  in  particular  have  formed  the  basis  of  this  investigation. 
They  have  been  denominated  "  Adverbial-Dative  Type  of  Predi- 
cation "  and  "  Prepositional  Type  of  Predication." 

The  first  explicit  reference  to  the  subject  of  oblique  predication, 
which  has  come  under  the  writer's  observation,  appears  in  a  disser- 
tation written  by  S.  EHas,  Quaestiones  Lycurgene,  Halis  Saxonum, 
1870.  On  p.  17  he  has  something  to  say  of  the  predicative  use  of 
the  adjective  in  connection  with  an  oblique  case  of  the  substantive. 
He  observes  that  the  construction  is  found  in  all  the  Orators,  but 
that  it  is  used  oflener  by  some  than  by  others.  It  is  found,  e.  g., 
four  times  in  Andocides — the  fourth  oration  is  included — three  times 
in  Antiphon,  four  times  in  Hyperides,  nine  times  in  Dinarchus. 
For  the  rest  of  the  Orators,  he  contents  himself  with  general  state- 
ments. He  remarks  that  it  occurs  often  in  Demosthenes,  oftenest 
in  Isocrates,  whose  example  is  followed  by  Lycurgus. 

The  next  reference  to  the  same  subject  is  made  by  H.  Mayer, 
Observationes  in  Lycurgi  Oratoris  Usum  Dicendi,  Friburgi,  1889. 
On  p.  33  ff.,  Mayer  notes  the  marked  fondness  of  Lycurgus  for  the 
predicative  position,  as  it  is  called,  of  the  adjective.  "  Si  enira, 
quomodo  collocata  sint  adiectiva,  qu&erimus,  oratorem  in  praedi- 
cativa  quae  dioitur  collocatione  adhibenda  quasi  exultare  intell^i- 
mus."  He  cites  a  number  of  examples  from  Lycurgus,  and  quotes 
the  figures  for  other  Orators  given  by  Elias  in  the  dissertation 
mentioned.  There  is  added  a  remark  on  the  stylistic  effect  of  the 
construction :  "  etiam  tali  adiectivorum  collocatione  plus  ponderis 


aMi^MHWfirfwg«g«iiiiiiy-' 


12         Tht  Limitaiions  of  the  Predicative  PosUUm  in  Oreek. 

orationem  nancisci  manifeetum  est."  With  this  judgment,  the 
present  writer  is  in  accord. 

It  is  quite  evident  from  the  figures  given  by  Elias  that  he  has 
examined  somewhat  carefully  the  usage  of  certain  of  the  Orators. 
If  one  has  regard  merely  to  the  number  of  occurrences,  the  state- 
ment with  respect  to  Demosthenes,  Isocrates,  and  Lycurgus  is  cor- 
rect as  far  as  it  goes;  but  looked  at  in  relation  to  the  bulk  of  Greek 
which  each  Orator  represents,  the  statement  is  far  from  correct.        ' 

A  table  of  the  usage  of  the  Orators  and  Thucydides,  in  which 
the  speeches  of  Thucydides  are  separated  from  the  narrative,  is 
subjoined,  giving  the  number  of  predicative  adjectives  or  parti- 
ciples used  by  each  writer.  Only  those  orations  generally  con- 
sidered genuine  are  included.  lu  the  case  of  Demosthenes,  the 
division  of  Blass  (Dindorf's  edition,  revised  by  Blass,  vol.  i,  pp. 
45-6)  has  been  followed. 

Rakoe  op  Oblique  Predication. 

Fired.  Adjs. 
and  Pta.       Teubner  pagei.    Percentage, 

Lycurgus 33  45  .73 

Thucydides  (Speeches)...  70  125  .56 

"           (Narrative).  81  473  .17 

Isocrates 189  508  .37 

Dinarchus H  54  20 

Lysias 28  200  .14 

Pseudo-Lygias 19  17  j  12 

Isaeus 16  133  .12 

Antiphon H  99  n 

Demosthenes 73  737  jy 

Pseudo-Demosthenes....  45  521  .09 

Hyperides 4  44  ,09 

Aeschines 17  188  .  .09 

Andocides 3  37  ^04 

Pseudo-Andocides 2  12  .17 

An  examination  of  this  table  yields  the  following  results  :  — 
Pseudo-Lysiaa,  Lycurgus,  Thucydides  (Speeches),  Isocrates,  and 
Dinarchus  stand  out  from  the  rest  in  the  preference  they  give  to 
this  construction.    At  the  opposite  pole  stands  Andocides,  to  whom 


i 


I  Greek. 

judgment,  the 

ias  that  he  has 
)f  the  Orators, 
nces,  the  state- 
ycurgus  is  cor- 
bulk  of  Greek 
■om  correct, 
lides,  in  which 
e  narrative,  is 
itives  or  parti- 
generally  con- 
raosthenes,  the 
lass,  vol.  I,  pp. 


I.    Percentage. 

.73 
.56 
.17 
.37 
.20 
.14 
1.12 
.12 
.11 
.10 
.09 
.09 
.09 
.04 
.17 

results :  — 
Isocrates,  and 
e  they  give  to 
sides,  to  whom 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek.        13 

the  construction  was  in  no  wise  congenial.  Of  the  remaining  Ora- 
tors, we  may  say  generally  that  they  pursued  a  middle  course.  A 
sharp  difference  is  noticeable  between  the  usage  of  Thucydides  in 
his  speeches  and  in  his  narrative.  Especially  striking  is  the  large 
use  in  the  Epitaphios  of  Pseudo-Lysias. 

The  foregoing  results  warrant  the  conclusion  that  the  true  home 
of  oblique  predication  is  not  in  simple  narrative  which  keeps  close 
to  the  language  of  everyday  life;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  quite  with- 
drawn from  that  sphere,  and  is  found  in  language  which  aims  to 
be  elevated,  weighty,  impressive,  and,  in  a  word,  strives  after 
effect.  Hence  the  marked  preference  for  it  in  that  much-discussed 
specimen  of  epideictic  oratory,  the  Epitaphios.  Hence  the  favor 
it  finds  with  Thucydides,  when  he  is  striving  to  be  impressive. 
Hence,  too,  the  fondness  for  it  shown  by  Lycurgus,  and,  in  a  less 
pronounced  manner,  by  Isocrates  and  Dinarchus.  Hence,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  marked  avoidance  of  it  by  Andooides,  who  was  not 
swayed  by  the  schools  of  rhetoric,  and  was,  perhaps,  the  least  artistic 
of  the  Orators. 

The  following  is  the  tabular  statemeut  of  the  results  reached  in 
an  examination  of  the  range  of  the  adverbial-dative  and  the  prepo- 
sitional type  of  predication. 

Advebbial-Dative  Type. 

Pted.  Adji. 
and  Ptd.       Teubner  fogei.    Ptnentage. 

Thucydides  (Speeches)...          5  125  .04 

"         (Narrative)..       12  473  .025 

Lycui^us 1  46  .022 

Isocrates 6  508  .012 

Aeschines 2  188  .010 

Isaeus 1  138  .007 

DemoBtheues 2  737  .0027 

Pseudo-Demosthenes 1  621  .002 

Pseudo-Lysias 1  17  .06 

Lucian 76  1268  .06 

Dion  GbrysoBtomus 12  708  .017 

Dion  Cassius 10  668  .015 

Diod.  Siculus 6  444  .013 


14        The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 


Prepositional  Type. 


Thucydides  (Speeches)... 
"  (Narrative). 

Dinarchus 

Demosthenes 

Pseudo-Demosthenes 

Aeschines 

Andooides 

Isoorates 

Autiphoo 

Lysias 

Pseudo-Lysias 

Lucian 

Dion  Cassius 

Dion  Chrysostomus 

Died.  Siculus 


These  tables  yield  the  following  results :  — 

Half  of  the  Orators  are  not  represented  at  all  in  the  adverbial- 
dative  type.    Thucydides  shows  the  same  decided  preference  for 
these  constructions  in  his  speeches  as  compared  with  his  narrative. 
Especially  is  this  to  be  seen  in  the  prepositional  type,  where  the 
proportion  is  above  9:1.    Lycurgus  is  the  foremost  of  the  Orators 
in  his  use  of  the  adv.-dative  type.    Except  in  one  possible  instance, 
he  seems  to  have  avoided  the  prepositional  type.    This  may  be  due 
to  the  small  amount  of  his  writing  which  has  come  down  to  our 
time.    Four  of  the  six  examples  of  the  adv.-dat.  type  in  Isocrates 
are  found  in  one  particular  section.    Aeschines,  while  using  both 
types  with  comparative  frequency,  prefers  the  prepositional  type. 
Especially  marked,  so  &r  as  variety  of  usage  goes,  is  the  prefer- 
ence of  Demosthenes  for  the  prepositional  type.    Its  ratio  to  the 
adv.-dat.  is  about  7:1.    With  respect  to  the  usage  of  Demosthenes, 
it  may  be  remarked  that  he  uses  the  prep,  type  eleven  times  in  his 
public  orations  (ten  of  them  being  in  Forensic  speeches),  four  times 
in  his  private  orations.    Taking  bulk  into  consideration,  the  public 


Pred.  Adjt. 
and  Pies. 

7 

Teubner  pages. 

126 

Percentage. 
.066 

3 

473 

.006 

2 

54 

.037 

16 

737 

.022 

2 

621 

.004 

4 

188 

.021 

1 

67 

.015 

7 

608 

.014 

1 

99 

.010 

1 

200 

.006 

1 

17- 

.06 

94 

1268 

.074 

16 

668 

.023 

11 

708 

.016 

2 

444 

.005 

■»-iMaw*«*fWT 


mr- 


I  Greek. 


ti.  Peremlage. 
.056 
.006 
.037 
.022 
.004 
.021 
.015 
.014 
.010 
.005 
.06 

.074 
.023 
.016 
.005 


the  adverbial- 
preference  for 
his  narrative, 
^pe,  where  the 
of  the  Orators 
isible  instance, 
lis  may  be  due 
e  down  to  our 
>e  in  Isocrates 
ile  using  both 
jsitiona)  type, 
is  the  prefer- 
is  ratio  to  the 
Demosthenes, 
a  times  in  his 
ss),  four  times 
on,  the  public 


The  Limitaiiona  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek.        15 

and  private  orations  cf  nnot  be  differentiated  on  this  score.  The 
plain  style  of  Lysias  avoids  the  dat.  type  altogether  and  uses  the 
prep,  type  once  only,  but  that  in  an  effective  passage,  in  the  12th 
oration,  where  Lysias  himself  is  the  speaker.  The  Epitaphios 
stands  out  from  all  the  rest. 

It  is  interesting  to  compare  the  usage  of  post-classic  Greek  as 
seen  in  the  writings  of  Lucian.  In  the  dat.  type  Lucian  outdoes 
all  except  Pseudo-Lysias,  while  in  the  prep,  type  even  Pseudo- 
Lysias  is  not  to  be  excepted.  This  excessive  use  of  oblique  predi- 
cation is  the  result  of  a  desire  on  the  part  of  that  writer  to  impart 
elegance  to  his  style.  Cf.  Prof.  Gildersleeve  in  A.  J.  P.  17,  518. 
Dion  Cassius  and  Dion  Chrysostomus,  as  compared  with  Lucian, 
are  very  much  nearer  the  norm. 

As  to  the  true  sphere  of  the  adv.-dat.  and  the  prep,  type,  the 
writer  believes  that  he  is  justified  in  aflBrming  that,  of  the  two,  the 
second  strikes  a  decidedly  higher  note.  The  first  undoubtedly 
takes  its  rise  in  the  language  of  everyday  life.  Demosthenes  em- 
ploys it  when  characterising  his  opponents,  and  only  in  a  contempt- 
uous sense.  Thucydides,  it  is  true,  gives  it  a  higher  tone  than  it 
usually  has  by  withdrawing  it  from  its  ordinary  associations  and 
transferring  it,  as  a  rule,  to  the  naval  sphere.  The  second,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  distinctly  elevated  in  tone,  though  it  draws  near,  in 
the  hands  of  certain  writers,  to  the  language  of  ordinary  discourse. 
Demosthenes  makes  use  of  it  with  telling  effect  in  passages  intended 
to  be  impressive.  Lucian  does  not  seem  to  have  appreciated  this 
difference  of  tone  between  the  two  types.  They  are  almost  alike 
to  him.  Thucydides,  by  his  marked  preference  for  the  construction 
in  his  speeches,  and  his  corresponding  avoidance  of  it  in  his  narra- 
tive, shows  that  he  regarded  it  as  more  elegant. 

A  class  of  i)articiple8,  having  the  value  in  translation  of  an 

,       PRED.  PTC.  EQUIV.        "^i^t  "°"%r"  ^7  ""Tl*"  '"^u 
OF  ABSTRACT  NOUN.  ®'      ^"^^  """"^  '*"*  *  ^^'^ 

group  in  the  Orators. 

Antiphon,  5,  36 :  Si  avrov  rod  a-wfiaro^  diroWv/iivov. 

Andocides,  3,  27:  ix  yhp  toO  "TroXe/iov  xpovtaOivroii. 

Lysias,  4,  10:  ix  t^?  av6pmirov  fiaa-avi^ofievri^. 

Lycurgus,  30:  ev  rot?  AetoKparov^  olieeiaKi  Kal  depavalvait 

/3aaavt<r0€i<rt. 


i 

I 


16         The  LmiUUiona  of  the  Predicative  Positim  m  Greek. 


Demosthenes,  18,  57:  diro  rovrtov  i^era^onivwu. 

•*  47,  47:  ix  t%  dvdptovov  fiaaavi^ofiivff^. 

"  24,  98:  wepl  K^yovra  tqv  iviavrov. 

This  use  of  the  participle  is  by  uo  means  restricted  to  the  oblique 
cases.    For  the  nominative,  of. 

Isocrates,   14,  49:   o  yhp  Koivo<i  ^Sto?  atroXmXam  tfi/a?  tA? 

eXTTtSa?  ?K<UTT0V  fffi&v  iyfeiv  iretroirjKev. 
Demosthenes,  64, 12:  pvv  B^  tout  Svwae  to  alfi  diroxo}pr)<rav. 
This  construction  goes  back  to  Homer.    Cf. 

N  37-8 :  S<l>p'  ifiweBov  aidi  iievoiev  \  vo<rTi^<ravra  AvaKra. 
One  type  of  this  construction,  viz.,  the  predic.  pto.  in  the  sociative 
dative  with  &ijm  and  the  like,  runs  through  Greek  literature  from 
the  very  first.  Tycho  Mommsen,  Beitrage  zu  der  Lehre  von  den 
griechischen  Prapositionen,  Berlin,  1895,  p.  65,  notes  that  Homer 
uses  it  in  three  expressions  only,  of  the  break  of  day  and  of  the 
setting  of  the  sun. 

a/t'  170?  4>aivofiivij<lnv  B  407,  f  266,  o  396,  etc. 
&/i  i76\i>  aviovri  fi  429,  yfr  362,  2  136. 
&Ha  B"  iJeXiV  icaraBvvTi  ir  366,  A  592,  2  210. 
Herodotus  goes  beyond  Epic  ust^,  and  uses  &fia  quite  generally 
for  "  with."    See  Mommsen,  p.  360. 

Hdt.  2,  44:  &fia  Tvp<p  oUi^ofiivn. 
"    3,  86  :  &fia  t^  tmrqt  tovto  voiijiTavri. 
"    1,  8  :  &/ia  Bk  K10&VI  eKBvofiiv^. 
With  these  participles,  Helbing,  Ueber  den  Gebrauch  des  echten 
und  sociativen  Dativs  bei  Herodot,  Karlsruhe,  1898,  p.  80,  rightly 
compares 

Hdt.  3,  134:  av^ojtiv^  yhp  tj5  tratfuiri  awav^ovrai  etc. 
Thucydides  uses  &/ui  with  the  dative  much  in  the  same  way  as 
Xenophon  does  later.    42  out  of  53  exx.  are  time-limitations.    See 
Mommsen,  p.  383.    e.  g., 

Thuc.  2,  2  :  ifia  ^pi  apxofiivqt. 

"     2,  6  :  &/ia  yd,p  t^  iaoB^  yiyvo/iivij, 
"     3,  1 :  &/ia  T{5  alrq)  &Kfidl^oifTi. 
Cf.  Aristophanes,  Eq.  520:  &fui  Totv  n-o\tot9  Karioiaam. 
In  Xenophon,  besides  the  Epic  usage,  we  find  kindred  expres- 
sions : 

Xen.  Anab.  7,  7,  39 :  aiip  Tot?  deoii  elBotri. 


The  Limiiationa  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek.        17 


>blique 

0(9    T^9 

cev. 
i)<rav, 

'.KTa. 
ciative 
e  from 
>n  den 
Homer 
of  the 


lerally 


echten 
ightly 

itc. 
my  M 

.    See 


« 

(C 


9. 

cpres- 


Xen,  Cyropaedia  8,  7,  6  :  aiiv  r^  -y^povtp  Trpoiovri. 
Cf.  Mommsen,  p.  364.' 

In  addition  to  the  examples  of  the  particular  type  just  noticed, 
the  following  may  be  cited  as  illustrative : 

Hdt.  1,  34:  fierei  8k  So\a>i>a  olj^ofievov. 

"     2,  22  :  diro  rt) ko fievqs  ;^toi/o9. 

"         "        itrX  ^^toft  weaovat). 
Thuc.  1,  100:  TO  ■)(wpiov  ai  ^E^vvea  oBol  kt i^ofiepop, 
2,  49  :  fierh  ravra  \a>^ij<ravTa, 

6,  3 :  fierh  %vpaKov<ra<;  oi k i<t6 eitra^. 

7,  42  :  hik  Trjv  AexiXeiav  re  ixt^Ofievrfv. 
Xen.  An.  7,  7, 12:  rj ')(wpa  iropdovfievr)  i\,vTr€i  avrov. 
Lucian,  Vera  Hist.  2,  43  :  ix  rov  vBaroi  Steo-Twro?. 

"  "  **      2,  5  :  OTTO  T&V  KkdBtov  Kivov/iivtov. 

Dion  Cassius,  58,  27,  2 :  Ztd  rov  SpdavWov  ao^wrara  rov 
^  Tiffeptov  /leraxeipia-dfievov. 

J.  E.  Sandys  in  a  note  to  Dem.  21, 49,  where  he  says  that  irdvr'' 
i^raa-fiiv'  is  equivalent  to  Trdvrwv  eferao-ts  and  tout'  d/ie\ovfiev' 
to  rovrwv  d/iikeia,  remarks  that  it  is  characteristic  of  Greek  and 
Latin  to  prefer  to  use  a  passive  participle  in  agreement  with  a  sub- 
stantive, instead  of  using  the  corresponding  noun  followed  by  the 
genitive.  Marchant,  in  a  note  to  Thuc.  vii.  28,  says  that  the  idiom 
is  less  common  in  Greek  than  in  Latin.  This  statement  in  regard 
to  Latin  requires  severe  modification.  Its  beginnings  in  Latin  are 
very  modest,  and  certainly  in  no  wise  prophetic  of  its  development. 
Rhetoric  became  its  foster-parent,  and  Livy  and  Tacitus  evinced  a 
predilection  for  it.  See  Schmalz,  Lateinische  Syntax,  2d  ed.,  p. 
439.  For  the  Greek  side,  see  Gildersleeve  in  A.  J.  P.,  13,  268  if., 
19,  463,  ff.,  and  20,  352,  ff.,  and  Stahl  in  Bh.  M.  54,  1  and  3. 

In  a  number  of  cases  which  might  be  cited  in  this  connection, 
the  plasticity  of  the  participle  admits  of  varied  conception.  These 
consequently  have  not  been  considered. 

'  The  usage  of  ifta  in  the  Oration  is  very  restricted.  See  a  Programm  by  L. 
Latz,  Die  Casns-AdTerbien  bei  den  attischen  Rednem,  Wiinbuig,  1891,  p.  88. 
No  case  occurs  where  the  predicative  participle  is  expressed.  Five  out  of  sixteen 
cases  are  found  in  Antiphon,  a  representative  of  the  older  Attic. 


t^nBamaesmtssssum 


tmSm 


18       T/ie  Limilations  of  (he  Predioalive  Position  in  Greek. 


The  Greek  dative,  unlike  the  Latin  dative,  which  is  purely  {ler- 
sonal  and  is  not  governed  by  a  preposition,  is  a  mixed  or  syncre- 

tistic  case.     The  elements  which  have 

TYPE  OF  PREDICATION,    ^^'v  regarded  as  three  lu  number. 

They  are  the  true  dative,  such  as  we 
find  in  Latin,  the  locative,  and  the  instt-umental.  These  three  have 
become  fused  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  very  difficult  at  times  to 
determine  which  conception  was  present,  or,  at  least,  uppermost  in 
the  mind  of  the  Greek.  The  situation,  however,  is  made  less  com- 
plicatai,  and  greater  unity  is  seen  to  prevail  amid  seeming  diversity, 
if  what  is  generally  conceived  as  instrumental  is  conceived  as  soci- 
ative  or  comitative.  The  idea  that  means  is  only  a  species  of 
accompaniment  is  presented  in  a  convincing  manner  by  Professor 
Gildersleeve  (fierd  and  <rvv  in  A.  J.  P.  8,  218  ff.),  who,  in  speaking 
of  the  language  of  Homer,  says :  "  There  was  no  difference  in  con- 
ception between  <rvv  Tevxfci  &od  aitu  de^.  The  distinction  is 
purely  modern.  What  we  regard  as  subordinate,  as  a  mere  append- 
age, was  not  such  to  the  primitive  man.  The  man's  weapons, 
horses,  chariot,  were  an  extension  of  his  individuality,  and  the 
feeling  is  by  no  means  dead,  as  is  attested  by  the  proper  names 
given  to  arms,  to  coaches,  to  vessels,  and  by  the  affectionate  femi- 
nine pronoun  so  often  employed  in  familiar  English  of  utensils  of 
all  kinds." 

The  sociative  dative  begins  very  simply  in  Homer,  and  at  the 
same  time  quite  naturally.  The  writer  is  in  accord  with  the  view 
of  the  genesis  of  this  dative  which  was  presented  recently  by  Fr. 
Stolz,  Der  attributive  Gebrauch  von  avro?  beim  sociativen  Dativ, 
Wiener  Studien,  20,  p.  244  ff.  Stolz  appears  to  have  overlooked 
the  fact  that  meritorious  work  had  already  been  done  in  this  field 
by  Holzweissig,  Ueber  den  sociativ-instrumentalen  Gebrauch  des 
griechisohen  Dativ  bei  Homer,  Burg,  1885.  The  dative  in  Homer, 
in  and  by  itself,  sufficed  to  express  accompaniment.  Holzweissig 
and  Stolz  give  examples  of  this.     We  may  cite : 

<f)a(rydvv  at^ai:  (E  81,  K  456,  6  88). 

atarvtop  ^  ^7X**  (A  484). 

tiriroi^  attrcrwv  (P  460). 

rolckv  hreiT   ^uraov  (2  506). 


The  LiiMtaiiom  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Qreek.       19 

The  sooiative  sense  of  the  simple  dative  survives  in  the  subse- 
quent literature.  As  Holzweissig  points  out,  it  appears  most  un- 
mistakably in  prose  when  the  dative  is  used  with  the  names  of 
persons  in  military  expressions,  e.  g. : 

Hdt.  5,  99:  oi  'Adijvaioi  airiKearo  eiKoai  uijv(ri, 

Thuc.  8,  38 :  ol  S'eV  t^?  Aia^ov  'Adi)vaioi  ^S?;  htafie^r^Ko- 

Te?  i<{  rijv  Xiov  rp  (npaTia. 
Ps.-Lys.  2,  3'2 :   €ih6rt<i  8'  ort  .  .  .  tViTrXeuo-oi/Te?  ^^tXiat? 
vavalv  epijfiTfv  rifv  ttoXiv  XtjyltopTai. 

Cf.  Helbing,  p.  84  ff.,  for  a  list  of  similar  expressions  in  Herodotus. 

In  considering  the  sociative  sense  of  the  simple  dative,  it  will 
be  helpful  to  notice  in  this  connection  one  of  the  most  interesting 
and  strrking  phenomena  of  Greek  with  which,  moreover,  we  are, 
in  a  measure,  familiar.  It  is  the  use  of  the  dative  with  auTo<r  to 
express  accompaniment.  Monro,  Homeric  Grammar,  p.  138,  note, 
remarks  that  in  such  a  phrase  as  avroh  o/SeXoiai  (f  77),  which  he 
explains  "  with  the  meat  sticking  to  the  spits  as  before,"  the  soci- 
ative sense  is  emphasised  by  the  addition  of  ourot?,  and  adds  that, 
without  such  an  addition,  there  would  generally  be  nothing  to 
decide  between  the  diiferent  possible  meanings  of  the  dative,  and 
consequently  a  preposition  (avu  or  afia)  would  be  needed.  But, 
after  all,  if  avrot  is  dropped,  all  that  is  lost  is  the  emphasis  which 
it  imparted  to  the  expression.  This  has  l)een  made  sufficiently 
clear  by  Stolz  (1.  c).  A.  further  cause  for  misconception  has  been 
the  occasional  use  of  cw  along  with  auro?  in  the  same  construction. 
This  has  letl  Kruger,  Dial.  48,  15,  16,  and  other  scholars  to  the 
wrong  conclusion  that  we  have  an  ellipsis  of  <rvv  in  those  cases 
where  it  does  not  occur.  Holzweissig  (1.  c.)  remarks  that  the  mere 
proportion  of  occurrences,  in  Homer,  of  avT6<i  with  the  dative,  and 
of  avv  followed  by  avro?  with  the  dative,  shows  that  the  form  with- 
out the  preposition  is  the  original  one.  The  reason  why  avv  is 
found  along  with  the  dative,  he  observes,  is  that  the  dative  has 
assumed  the  functions  of  the  datitms  oomitativua.  Had  he  gone 
further  and  considered  this  as  applicable  to  the  dative  unaccom- 
panied by  avT09,  he  would  have  anticipated  Stolz  at  this  point. 

The  usage  of  avro?  in  this  idiom  for  different  authors  is  given 
by  Mommsen,  Beitrage,  p.  62.    It  occurs  in  Homer  thirteen  times, 


I 


ikM^^mm^M^tMjmmmM 


20        The  lAmitaliona  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Oreek. 

avv  being  added  in  three  inutances.  Moinmsen's  theory,  which 
the  writer  is  unable  to  accept,  is  that  avT^,  Iil<e  orvv,  serves  to  raise 
the  weak  instrumental  to  a  sociative.  Tiie  use  of  avr6<i  with  the 
singular  in  |)eculiar  to  comedy  and  Homer.  The  tragic  use  is  con- 
fined to  the  phiral,  nnd,  as  a  general  rule,  is  concerned  with  things. 
Id  Aristophanes  (MomniHcn,  p.  649),  it  is  usal  only  of  things,  but 
in  both  singular  and  plural,  and  with  or  without  the  article.  The 
use  of  the  article  is  restricted  to  comedy  and  prose.  For  comedy,  cf. 
Aristophanes,  Vespae,  170:  aiiToiat,  roh  Kap0r)\(,oi^, 

"  "       1449:  avTolai  rot?  xavOdpoi^. 

"  Equites,  849 :  avTolai  rot?  troptra^vv. 

"  Nubes,  1302:  avToh  r/joj^ot?  rots  <roiai  xaX 

^vvapiaiv, 

"  Ranae,  660 :  avroU  toU  roKapoK. 

Eupolis,  Arjfioi,  37  :  avToitri.  ral<i  Kv^fiaia-iv. 

For  this  last  example,  cf.  Meineke,  it,  p.  475  ff.,  Kock,  Frag. 
Com.  Gr.  i,  p.  284,  and  Henri  Weil  in  the  Revue  Critique,  vol. 
12,  (N.  8.),  1881,  p.  293  ff.  Weil,  in  brief,  makes  this  expression 
equivalent  to  avraiat  raU  f>i^ai<riv. 

Turning  to  prose,  note 
Herodotus,  6,  32:  kuI  ra^  TroXta?  ivetrifnrpaa'av  avroiat  to {9 
ipoi<ri. 

Bekker  struck  out  the  article  here,  and  was  followed  by  Kriiger. 
In  a  number  of  passages  from  Herodotus,  the  MSS  vary  as  to  the 
use  or  omission  of  the  article.  Kallenberg,  Coramentatio  oritica 
in  Herodotum,  Berlin,  1884,  p.  15  (cf.  Helbing,  p.  86),  after  an 
examination  of  the  passages  in  question,  arrives  at  the  conclusion 
that  Herodotus  was  not  uniform  in  his  usage,  but  sometimes  ad- 
mitted, sometimes  omitted,  the  article.  The  principle  that  Kallen- 
berg has  laid  down  (Jahresber.  des  philol.  Yereins  zu  Berlin,  1897, 
p.  204  ff.),  in  the  course  of  an  excellent  contribution  on  the  article 
with  tra^,  oiro^,  ixeivo^,  and  oSe  in  Herodotus,  that  the  article  is 
used  because  of  the  noun  with  which  it  is  associated  and  not  because 
of  the  pronoun,  is  applicable  also  to  avT6<!.  The  omission  of  the 
article  in  prose  can  be  explained,  as  has  already  been  indicated,  by 
Epic  survival,  e.  g.,  avToiat  avhpdai,  which,  as  Kallenbetg  remarks, 
seems  to  be  a  crystallized  expression  used  first  by  Herodotus,  then 


K 


The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative.  Position  in  Greek.       21 


by  Thucydides  and  Xenoplicn.  Only  one  inatance  of  outo?  with  the 
Bociative  dative  wns  obHerved  in  the  Orators,  vii.,  in  Demosthenes, 
22,  68  :  airaU  ireSai^, 

But  wunis  may  occupy  the  predicative  position  so-called,  with- 
out at  the  same  time  conveying  a  predicative  signification.  Such 
the  writer  believes  to  be  the  case  with  avro^  and  certain  other 
words,  as  aKpoi,  fieao^i,  etc.  They  are  simply  appositive.  Of 
datives  which  undoubtedly  carry  a  predicative  signification,  the 
following  may  be  cited  by  way  of  illustration  ; 

Hdt.  6,  8  :  •rre'7r\rjpa>fiepf)<Ti,  rfja-i,  vrjval  •trapfjaav  ofT^otve^, 
Thuc.  1,6:  dveifjiivp  rp  Siairrj. 
Aristoph.  Eq.  280 :  Kevi}  rp  KocKla, 
Plato,  Legg.  880  A  :  ^jriKai^  raU  ;^ep<nV. 
Xen.  Anab.  1,  8,  1  :  ihpovvri  r^  'iirtrtp. 
'*     Hell.  3,  4,  11 :  <f>aiBp^  t^J  irpoatairtfi. 

The  sociative,  rather  than  the  instrumental,  sense  of  such  datives 
as  the  foregoing  is  now  recognized  by  Kuhner-Gerth,  Ausfiihrliche 
Gramraatik  der  griech.  Spraohe,  §  426,  6,  as  a  comparison  with  the 
preceding  edition  will  readily  show.  "Attendant  Circumstances," 
"  Manner,"  and  the  like,  are  simply  8i)ecial  manifestations  of  the 
same  dative. 

It  may  be  remarked  at  this  point  that  the  participle  employed  is 
generally  the  perfect,  occasionally  the  present.  The  reason  for  the 
predominance  of  these  particular  tenses  is,  in  the  writer's  opinion, 
that  given  by  Boiling  (The  Participle  in  Hesiod — Cath.  Univ. 
Bull.,  vol.  III.,  p.  466,  Washington,  1897)  for  the  Homeric  use  of 
participles  in  direct  attribution.  "  The  reason  for  the  predominance 
of  these  tenses  (i.  e.,  the  present  and  the  perfect)  is  that  lasting 
actions  are  the  ones  that  lend  themselves  most  readily  to  attribu- 
tion, and  these  are  to  be  found  either  in  the  continued  action  of 
the  present  or  in  the  perfect  as  denoting  attitude  and  resulting  con- 
dition." The  relation  of  the  participle  to  the  adjective,  so  far  as 
numbers  go,  is  in  the  Orators  1 :  12,  in  Lucian  1 : 6. 

A  widely  different  view  of  these  datives  is  that  of  Classen  who, 
in  the  course  of  his  remarks  on  the  expression  arekel  t!)  vikji 
(Thuc.  8,  27,  6),  notes  that  we  have  here  a  "  Dative  Absolute,"  of 
which  he  has  given  several  examples  from  Homer,  Beobachtungen 


38       The  Limitationa  of  the  Predicative  Poaition  in  Greek. 


ADV.-DAT.  TYPE, 
(a)  Clasbioal  Oreek, 


Uber  den  hom.  Sprg.,  p.  166.  Compare,  further,  his  notes  on 
Thucydides,  1,  6,  3  and  2,  100,  6,  which  bear  in  the  same  direc- 
tion. Monro,  Homeric  Grammar,  p.  213,  recognizes  in  a  number 
of  these  examples  from  Homer  an  approach  to  a  "  Dative  Abso- 
lute." He  characterizes  them  as  extensions  or  free  applications  by 
the  help  of  the  participle  of  the  true  dative  {dat.  dh.).  Classen's 
use  of  the  term  "  Dative  Al)solute  "  has  received  merited  strictures 
from  Spieker,  Genitive  Absolute  in  the  Attic  Orators,  A.  J.  P.,  6, 
p.  316.  The  pro|)er  {wint  of  view,  in  the  writer's  judgment,  from 
which  to  regard  these  datives  in  given  by  Ktthner-Gerth,  vol.  ii. 
§423, 18,  e,  f,  and  g.    See  also  Wdlfflin's  Archiv,  vol.  8,  p.  48  ff. 

Having  treated  of  the  origin  of  the  adverbial-dative  ty|)e  of 
pre<lication,  the  writer  proposes  to  set  forth  here  the  usage  of  the 

classical  period,  with  the  historians, 
especially  Thucydides,  and  the  Orators 
as  the  basis  of  this  study.  By  way  of 
comparison  and  contrast,  the  usage  of  post-classical  Greek  will  be 
noted,  with  Lucian  as  the  model  for  this  period,  and  an  endeavor  will 
be  made  to  indicate  any  deviations  from  the  norm  of  classical  usage. 
The  sociative,  or  comitative,  dative  may  conveniently  be  subdi- 
vided into  (1)  dative  of  military  accompaniment,  (2)  dative  of 
attendant  circumstances,  (3)  dative  of  means  and  instrument.  Some 
of  the  examples  considered  under  one  of  these  heads  might  very 
well  be  considered  under  another. 
(1)  Dative  of  Military  Accompaniment:  — 

Hdt.  6,  8,  1  :   TrewXripwfiivija-t  rfjai,   vifvtrl    Traprjtrav 

oi  "IcDvet. 
Thuc.  4,  55,  1 :  adpoa  fikv  wSaftoii  t§  Svvdftei  avrerd- 
^avTO. 
T^  Twy^vvavrovvTi  ddpowrep^  Kov<f)l- 
o-ovrev  irpo<r^d\oiev. 

fieya  ydp  to  xal  avraU  rot?  vav<r\  Kovf 
iftaiv  roarovTOv  trXovv  Sevpo  KOfiurBijvai. 
!   (roo-^Se   iiBri   rf}   irapaixKevg   'AOijvaioi 
apavres;). 
lb.  8,  80, 1 :  ddpoai^  rai<i  vavalv  .  .  .  ovk  dvravi^yovro. 
lb.   8,   104,   5:   dadepiai   koI   Sieairatr/iivai^   rat^ 
vavtrl  Kadiaramo. 


lb.  6,  34,  6 : 
lb.  6,  37,  1 ! 
lb.  6,  43,  1 


i 


u 

u 


The  LimUationa  of  Ihe  Predicative  Position  in  (Hreek.        23 

Tho  futegoing  examples)  exIiauHt  the  list  of  dutivoH  of  military 
accnn)|)aniiueiu  of  tluH  ty|)c.  None  were  found  in  the  Orators, 
where  theit  otwurrence  ^  >uW  only  l)e  incidental.  Although  Herotl- 
■otus  frfH]uently  ii.«''s  the  sociative  dative,  the  example  cited  ahove 
is  the  (Illy  one  of  tliia  ty|M>.     Heihing,  p.  84  ff.,  has  overlooked  it. 

Similar  datives  from  Xenophon  may  be  noticed  here: 

Anab.  1,  7,  14  :  trvvTerayfiivip  t^  arparevfiari. 

lb.  4,  2,  1 1  :  opdioiv  rot^  \6xoii. 

Hell.  1,  6,  14 :  BieairapfievaKt  Tai<i  vavtri. 

In  comedy  may  be  noted  : 

Aristophauea,  Acharn.,  686  :  arpoyyvXai^  toi<i  ^i]fia<ri. 
Ranae,  903 :  avrotrpep.voK  roh  Xoyonriv. 
Ekjuitca,  206  :  a>^KvKai<s  rai<t  x«/o<''tf . 

(2)  Dative  of  Attendant  CircumHtances :  — 

Thuc.  1,  6,  3:  xaX  aveifiivj)  tjj  Biairp  i<i  to  Tpv<f>epdf 

repov  fjLeriartjaap. 
lb.  ],  120,  6:   ivOvftxlrai  yiip  oiiSeU  ofiola  tjj  iriarn 

KtiX  ipftfi  iwe^ipxtTai. 
lb. 2, 38, 2:  fif}Bh>  olKeioripq,  rrj  airoXavtrei  rci  avrov 

dyadh  ytypofieva  Kapirovadai. 
lb.  2,  100,  2 :  Acal  rp  &Wj)  TrapaaKevj}  Kpeiaaovi. 
lb.  3,  38,  1 :    0  yhp  iraOmv  t^J  hpdaavn  dp,fi\vTipa  rp 

opyy  iwe^epxfrai. 
lb.  6,  65,  3:  TroW^J  t^  trepiovri  tov  d<r<f>a\ov^  Kare- 
Kparijae, 

Classen  sees  in  the  first  and  last  examples  an  equivalent  for  the 
genitive  absolute  construction.  The  dative  point  of  view,  as  has 
already  been  remarked,  forbids  such  a  comparison.  In  the  second 
example,  the  MSS  read  ofiota,  which  some  editors  adopt.  The  edi- 
tors are  warranted  in  making  the  slight  change  of  accent.  In  the 
last  case,  we  have  a  favorite  Thucydidean  use  of  the  neuter  parti- 
ciple.    It  is  equivalent  to  iroWfi  r^  irepiovtrla. 

The  usage  of  the  Orators  is  as  follows : 

Pseudo-Lysias  2,  18 :  iXevdipatfi  rai^  '^v^^aZ?  ^TroXt- 

revovro. 


'?#»• 


24        Tht  LimUaiions  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 

Iboc  ^tea  15,  126  :  avaireirraiiivai^  avrov  iSixovro  rat^ 

IsaeusS,  59:  XoiSop^trerat  fieyaXj)  t^  ^tav^. 
Lycui^us  145:    o  fiijXo^oTov  rr/v  'Ani,Kr)v  elvai  tftavepf, 

T^  V^^^9>  icara'^ri^urdiievo^t. 
Demosthenes  19,  199:  ipel  \afiirpd  t^  <f>wv'p. 
lb.    57,   11 :   ipKaa^ftei   learifiov   to;^v    koI   iroWtt   Kai 

/leydXi)  rfj  tfxovp, 
lb.  43,  82:  i^avepq,  rp  '^17^^  e-^^iVaro. 
Aeschines  1, 19  :  8?  ovSk  xadapip  SiaXeyerai  t^  atofiart. 
lb.  2,  7:  ttW'  i<TT)  TJj  evvoiq,  aKovovra^. 

The  position  of  avairevTafievaifi,  in  the  second  example,  is  due 
to  Isocrates'  avoidance  of  hiatus.  The  contemptuous  use  of  4nuv^ 
by  Isaeus  and  Demosthenes  is  noteworthy.  In  the  case  of  Pseudo- 
Demosthenes  43,  82,  Blass  revises  Dindorf's  text  by  striking  out 
the  article.  He  has  MS  warrant  (8  F,Q).  The  reason  he  assigns 
"At  Tnetaphorioe  hio  uaurpatur  ■^4>o^**  does  not,  in  the  writer's 
opinion,  carry  any  weight.  In  Aeschines  1,  19,  for  am/iaTi  there 
is  a  V.  1.  (TTOfuiTi.  There  is  no  doubt,  however,  of  the  oblique 
predication.  With  4077  t^  evvoCa  of  Aeschines  2,  7,  may  be  com- 
pared 6/ji.oia  Tji  TTiWet  of  Thucydides  1, 120. 

Especially  to  be  noted  are  the  substantives  in  the  foregoing  list^ 
They  are  such  words  as  yjrvxv>  iiotvri,  yjrr)<f)0(:,  a&fia,  eHvoia.  The 
list  is  important  for  this  reason,  that  it  gives  us  the  key  to  the 
true  home  of  the  construction  we  are  studying.  Further  verifica- 
tion will  be  found  in  the  pages  following.  The  adverbial-dative 
type  of  predication  centres  round  the  body  and  its  parts.  The 
principle  of  analogy  gives  the  construction  a  wider  range. 

The  article  in  each  of  the  examples  just  cited  may  be  considered 
as  a  weakened  or  fainter  possessive.  (Cf.  Kriiger,  Sprachlehre  50, 
2,  3).  The  Attic  Greek  was  wont  to  use  the  article  in  character- 
ising various  objects  with  which  he  Rtnod  in  some  personal  relation 
where  we  generally  prefer  the  possessive  pronoun.  Our  English 
idiom  requires  the  omission  of  the  possessive  in  a  number  of  cases. 
For  instance,  we  should  not  say  'with  his  voice  loud,'  but  *  in  a 
loud  voice.'  We  may  say,  however, — and  this  helps  us  to  under- 
stand the  idiom—'  with  his  eye»open,'  'with  his  fists  clenched,'  etc. 


The  Idmilations  of  the  Predicative  Position,  in  Greek.        26 


(3)  Dative  of  Means  and  Instrument :  — 

Thuc.  2,  49,  5:  rfj  Si-^-p  airavar^  ^vve}(pfi€voi. 

lb.  2,  76,  4:  a^ieaav  Ttfv  Bokov  ^'''^^P**^^   rat^   d\v- 

aeai, 
lb.  7,  36,  3 :    orrepL^oi^  xaX  irax^f't  trpo^  KoTKa   xal 

atrdevfj  nrapi'xpvTe^,  rot?  i/M^oXoi^. 

Of  the  Orators,  Isocrates  is  the  only  one  represented  under  this 
head. 

Isocr.  10,  23:   oi  yhp  fiovov  rot?   oirXoi^  iKO<rfi^<rapTO 

irapairX'qvLoi^  etc. 
lb.    15,   47:    Koi    yhp    r§    Xe^ei    TroitiriKwrepa    koI 

troiKi\wTipa  rk^  irpd^eK  Bri\ov<n  .... 

h'l    Bk    rat^   aWai^   lBiai<i  i7ri<f>av€  - 

<rT4pai<i   Koi   irXeioartv    oKov    tov   \6yov 

BioiKOv<riv. 

In  the  first  of  these  examples  from  Isocrates,  the  position  of 
•irapair\T)(rioi<i  is  evidently  due  to  the  desire  of  avoiding  hiatus. 
The  second  shows  a  carefully  studied  and  symmetrical  arrangement 
of  the  different  parts  of  the  sentence. 

All  the  examples  of  the  sociative  dative  in  oblique  predication 
found  in  Herodotus,  Thucydides  and  the  Orators,  have  now  been 
considered.  A  few  more  datives  involving  the  same  principle,  but 
not  sociative,  may  be  noted  at  this  point. 

Thuc.  2,  100:   avToi>^   iro\\av\a<rl^    r^    6/jui\^    i^ 
kIvBvvov  Kadi<rra<rav. 

Some  conceive  this  as  dative  of  cause ;  others  as  dative  of  the 
indirect  object. 

Thuo.  1,  30:  pA-xpi  oi   Koplvdioi  irepitivri  r^  depet 
iripr^vre^  vaxn  icaX  oTparidv. 
This  is  the  dative  of  time.    With  it  has  been  compared 

Xen.  Hell.  3,  2,  25 :  irepuovri  r^S  iuiavr^. 
Jowett  (Thuo.  1,  30,  note)  daims  that  the  cases  are  not  exactly 
parallel. 

Thuo.  1,  117,  1:  a<t>pdKT^   ry   arparoviBip   iviirt- 
aovrev. 


I 


26         The  Idniilalions  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 


lb.   2,  39,   3; 
lb.  4,  122,  5  ; 


wh€l<t 


irto 


adpoa  re   r^  ivvdfiet   rffiMV   ov< 
iro\efiio<i  iveTVj(€. 
T^  Karh  yfjv  AaKeBai/iovlwv  lax^'^  dvto^e- 
\ei  irurrevovrefi. 
lb.  7,  39,  2 :  Stto)?  ....  xal  StoKiyov  aiOi^  koI  avdrj/iepov 
dtrpoaBoKi^Toi^  rot?  ^Adrivaioi^  iirixei- 
p&ai. 

These  are  datives  of  the  indirect  object,  with  which  the  predica- 
tive adjective  stands  in  agreement,  and  are  not  to  be  confounded 
witli  the  sociative  dative.  It  is  not  always  easy  to  decide  which 
kind  of  dative  we  have,  as,  e.  g.,  in  the  instance  cited  above  under 
dative  of  military  accompaniment  (Thuc.  4^  56, 1).  If  it  refers  to 
the  Peloponnesians,  we  have,  undoubtedly,  the  dative  of  military 
accompaniment,  in  other  words,  the  sociative  dative.  If  the 
Athenians  are  referred  to,  we  have  the  dative  of  the  indirect 
object.  Jowett  prefers  the  former,  Kriiger  the  latter,  inter- 
pretation. 
The  following  datives  in  the  Orators  may  be  noted : 

Antiphon  376:  iroXe/ii^  r^  rovrov  ^i\ei  irepiTreaeav. 

lb.  5, 12:  dvoDiiOToii  nrierTevaavTa<i  toi<!  ftapTvpovai. 

Lysias  32,  14:  iiriTvxovra^  €Kffel3\r)fiiv^  t^  ^i/SXi^. 

Isocrates  8,  104:  ofiolaii  rati  trvfnf>opai^  irepUireaov. 

Aeschines  3, 146:  <f>ipa>v  ....  tov  kIvBvvov  dirapaaxev^ 
rrj  TToXei,. 

These  are  all,  likewise,  datives  of  the  indirect  object,  with  which 
the  predicative  adjective  or  participle  stands  in  agreement. 

Lucian,  who  is  generally  conceded  to  be  the  best  of  the  Atticists, 
has  been  made  the  basis  of  this  study,  and  his  usage  is  instructive 

_  for  the  period.     One  cannot  fail  to 

ADV.-DAT.  TYPE.  ..        •     *.      t      •     •  r  *u 

(6)  P0BT.CLA8810A1,  Qbmk.    °o*>°e/  »°  **ie  Lucianic  usage  of  the 

sociative-dative  type,  the  salient  fact,  to 
which  attention  has  already  been  called,  that  it  has,  first  and  chiefly, 
to  do  with  the  body  and  its  parts.  But,  looking  deeper  than  this 
general  resemblance,  it  will  lie  seen  that,  while  he  observes  the 
letter  of  the  law,  he  kills  the  spirit.  The  Attic  Greek  used  it  in 
drcumstanoes  justifying  its  nee.  The  Atticist  paid  no  regard  to 
circumstances.    With  him,  it  is  simply  affectation. 


The  Limitaiiona  of  the  Predicative  Poaiiion  in  Oreek.        27 


« 


(( 


In  clasaifying  the  datives,  it  in  found  that,  as  in  the  Orators,  so 
in  Lucian,  the  dative  of  military  accompaniment  finds  no  scope. 
There  remain,  then,  the  dative  of  attendant  circumstances  and  the 
dative  of  means  and  instrument.  Here,  too,  the  classification,  it 
must  be  premised,  is  one  of  convenience,  and  is  more  or  less 
arbitrary.  No  attempt  was  made  to  discriminate  the  genuine 
from  the  spurious  dialogues. 

(1)   Dative  of  Attendant  Circumstances: — 

Lucian,  Nigrinus  4 :  arevei  xal  avairewrafiivri  r§  "^v^P' 
"       Timon  9  :  fieydXfi  rp  <}>wvg  (saepe). 
"       lb.  41 :  dvaireirra/jLepot^  rot?  koXitoi^. 
"       Dial.  Deor.  20,  6  :  t^  rpaxn^^  dTrerrrpa/iniv^. 
"       Dial.  Mar.  4,  3  :  dveqiyfjUvotii  rot?  o^BaXfuth. 
"       Dial.  Mort.  21,  1  :  drpiwrt^  t^  irpoirtair^, 
"      Menippus  9  :  i^pe/uila  rp  (ftwvp. 

lb.   18 :  Tpaxeia   kuI  dmivei  rp ,  ^wvp.     (Cf.   Bis 

Accus.  31,  and  De  Morte  Peregr.  3.) 
De  Merc.  Gond.  34 :  XeTrr^  rg  ^mvp. 
Hermotimus  1 :  fuiKp^  r^  'xpov^. 
Zeuxis  4 :  v-irearaXfihn)  t§  oirXp. 
Quom.  hist,  oonscr.  1 :  Xivtipei  r^  trvper^. 

"  45 :  i<f>t'inrov  oxoviiAvff  r6re  rp 

Gunuchus  1 1 :  ^vxp^  t^  iSp&Tt. 

Amores  13 :  Xiirapoi^  roU  xeiXetriv. 

lb.  36  :  {nrearaX/iiv^  r^  1^9  <fnoprj^  r6v<p. 

lb.  37  :  yvfw^  r^  Xoyqt. 

lb.  62 :  tkap^  t^  irpoamir^. 

Lucius  47 :  hravBovtrp  rp  fpi-X^' 

Ghlllus  6 :  dve^otrt  toI^  o^aX/ioiv. 

Bis  Aocus.  10 :   -^t\f»  rt/ti/cravref  r^  KpSrtp. 

De  Parasito  49 :  iJMuBp^  t^  Trpotriair^.    (Cf.  Cronos. 

16.) 
Philopseudes  24  :  irivapq.  koL  a{rx/iea<rji  rg  Xdxyr/. 
Cal.  Don  tem.  cred.  24:  tXap^  koX  kw/uk^  r^  vpo- 

(reairtp. 
Navigium  16 :  woXX^  r^  7eXa>T(. 


« 


<( 


(( 


<« 


tt 


u 


« 


28         The  Limitalions  of  the  Predicalive  Potiiion  in  Greek. 


« 


Lucian,  Dial.  Meretr.  4,  5 :  iirirpoxv  "^V  7^<»''t17' 
"      De  morte  Peregr.  32 :  iivpitp  r^  vXridei. 
"      Fugitivi  10 :  arevitri  rot?  6<f)0a\fioU. 
"      lb.  33 :  ptnrdurr}  irpoahi  koX  ywaiKcla  r^  irtrrp. 

With  a  very  few  exceptions,  the  substantives  in  the  foregobg 
list  belong  to  tlie  class  already  described.  iieydXji  t§  (ftatvp  is 
especially  frequent.  Demosthenes  used  Xafivpf,  also  in  this  con- 
nection. Lucian  seems  to  ring  all  the  changes  which  the  construc- 
tion admits  of.  This  is  suggestive  of  Lucian's  method. 
(2)  Dative  of  Means  and  Instrument:  — 
Ludan,  Timon  21 :  iraXeu^  r^  odovrf. 

Dial.  Mort.  17,  1 :  KoliKri  rp  xeipL 

lb.  10, 12 :  a^eovovi  rot?  XLOok.    (Cf.  Pise.  1.) 

Zeuxis  3 :  aKpifiel  rp  orti^/ip.    (Cf.  Imag.  17.) 

Qnom.  hist,  conscr.  7 :  ov  arev^  T<p  lad/i^. 

lb.  34 :  iroWy  t^  aaK^qvei  koI  trwexel  t^  irovf  koI 

"Vera  Hist.  1,  6:  ov  rpax^t  weptij^ow/*^*^*'  f^ 
KVfiari. 

Phal.  pr.  11 :  aKi^KTOi<i  rai^  68vvai^' 

Amores  12 :  rai^  KOfiaK  evdoKitriv. 

Imagines  14 :  eiiKaCpip  t^  &p<rei  xai  diaei. 

Tozaris  20 :  fieyak^  t^  -nvevfuvn. 

lb.  60 :  KafvirvK^  r^  ft^t. 

Lucius  42 :  aBpoef.  rp  %6t/oi. 

"      61 :  TToWoi^  Tot9  ^iKriiuun, 

Bis  Accus.  10 :  ar/KvKtp  t{5  haicTvKtp. 

Anaohar.  31 :  fiaBivt  roU  rpaviuunv. 

De  Domo  18  :  oBpo^  r^  «<£\Xe(. 

De  Dips.  11 :  ttoXX^  rfS  avx/'^- 
Dial.  Meretr.  13,  2 :  ivixpvtroi^  roU  ivXot^. 
Convivium  44 :  xPV<^V  f^"^  *<t^  ficiBei  r^  rpavfuiri. 
lb.  44 :  opd^  T^  SaxrvXf). 
Nero  9 :  opdaX^  ra*^  SiXroi^. 

These  examples  abundantly  illustrate  Luoianio  usage.  The  fol- 
lowing examples  from  other  authors  may  also  be  noted.  The 
influence  of  earlior  writers  is  perceptible. 


1' 


u 

(( 
« 
« 
« 

« 
(I 


The  lAmUatwM  of  the  Predicative  Poaitum  in  Greek.        29 


(1)  Dative  of  Military  Aocompaniment :  — 

Dion  Caflsius,  39,  68,  1 :  irpoiotv  hk  ivrevBep   Sixa   Bi^prf- 

fiiptp  T^  VTpar^. 
lb.    50,    11,    6:     adpotf,    Tp    wapavKevg    tow    'loviov 

SUjSaKev. 
lb.  50,  31,  4:  irvKvai^  rat?  pav<rlv  oXiyov  lfo>  r&v 
trrev&p  vapara^afiAvtov. 

(2)  Dative  of  Attendant  Circumstances :  — 

Dion  Cass.  43,  43,  2:  rij  re  yhp  ivBfjri  x'^vvoripq,  iv 

iraaiv  ivr)ffpvveTo. 
lb.  46,  22,  4 :   Sre  yovv  yv/ivoi^  roi^  ^i^eaiv  i^  rijv 

ayopiiv  i<riBpafiov. 
lb.  49,  20,  2:  iroppiodev  yhp    9^ohpal<i   Tal<i   fioXat^ 

i^lKPOVfUVOt. 

lb.   55,   15,   7:   &trTe    xadapf,    xal  a^povrltrrip    Koi 

avvirowrip  t^  "^^XV  ifpoao/tiKeiu. 
Diod.  Sic.  1,  70,  5 :  fieydkri  rp  4ta>v§.     (Cf.  1,  83,  3.) 
lb.  3,  27,  3:  KaTaic\i0eU  Bi  adp6<p  r^  fidpei. 
lb.  3,  29,  3:  wdm-e^  irpoa^powi  ravrrjv  ad  poo  i^  rot? 

o-o>pot9. 
lb.  4,  48,  2 :  itnraaiJpoK  rot?  ^'^«rt.     (Cf.  4,  52,  4.) 

(3)  Dative  of  Means  and  Instrument :  — 

Dion   Cass.   40,  43,   3:    iKiim^at    airoi)^  ix  r^f  ayopav 

irXayloiv  Kal  irXarivi  roi^ 
(l«f>€tri  iratovra^. 
By  "  prepositional  type "  of  oblique  predication,  is  meant  ob- 
lique predication  introduced  by  a  preposition.    The  plan,  pursued 

in  the  previous  chapter,  of  notine  the 
PREPOSITIONAL  TYPE.      i  „•    i  •     xu     i  •  x    • 

ans  and  Orators,  and  of  comparing  or 
contrasting  with  it  that  of  poat-olassical  Gre^k,  is  also  followed 
here. 
Herodotus :  — 

Hdt.  6,  92,  7:  8ti  ivl  -<frvxp^v  rhv  lirvov  HeptavSpo^ 

Toin  iprovi  iirifioKe. 
lb.  6,  29:  5«a>9  rwh  tBoiev  iv  avearijKvlji  t§  X'''PV 
dypbv  ed  i^epyaa/Uvov. 


30         The  lAmitatiom  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 

These  are  the  only  cases  found  in  Hdt.  There  is  a  special  reason 
for  the  predicative  position  of  the  adjective  yjrvxpov.  "  Into  the 
cold  oven  "  is  an  incorrect  rendering.  It  might  be  rendered  "  into 
the  oven  when  it  was  cold."  But  the  brachylt^y  of  the  Greek 
has  disappeared.  ave<rn}Kvif)  is  best  interpreted  dvaaraT^  yepo- 
fUvji  or  dveurrdTip  ioi/cxi-  Stein  aptly  compares  Xen.  Cyrop.  1  ,'3  : 
ev  opetvy  ovaji  rfj  x^P^' 

Thucydides :  — 

Thuc.   1,   J9,  2:    fterh   aKpai^vovt    t^9   ^v/ifiax^i^l 

^p6fjaav. 
Thuc.  2,  43, 4:  irpo^  dvevOvvop  t^i/  vfieripap  dxpo- 

atrip. 
lb.  6,  66,  1 :  8ti,  fikp  KoXh  tA  irpoeipyao-fiipa  «ol  virkp 

Ka\&p  T&v  fieWovTcop  6  dyatp  ^arai. 
lb.  6,  77,  1  :  dWh  ^a>pifj<i  ikevdepoi  ott'  avropo/iov  Trj<! 

UeKoiroppi^o'ov. 
lb.  6,  92,  5;  koI  avrobi  pvp  po/ila-aprai  ire  pi  fieyiarap 

Si)  Toil'  SiatftepopTtov  fiovKevetrdai, 
lb.  7,  84,  4:  Koi  ip  Kol\<p  6prt  r^  iroraiJ,^  ip  atf>i<nv 

airroifi  rapturao/jUpov^. 
lb.  1,  36,  1  :  TO  Bi  Oapcovp  /lii  Be^a/iepov  cur6epk<i  6p  wpov 
Itrx^oPTa^  Toit^  iX^po^i  dZeiarepop  iao- 
fiepop. 
lb.  1,74,  3:  v/iet9   fikp  yhp   diro  re    oiKovfiipmp   r&p 

nroXewp. 
lb.  1,84,4:  aeX  Bk  m  vpb<i  ei  fiovXevofiipov^  roixi 

ipaPTiov^  ipytp  vapturKeva^dt/jieda. 
lb.  8,  38,  3:  oi  Bk  Xiot  ip  'iro\\at<i  rai^  irpip  fidxaiii 
trewKityiUpoi. 
This  array  of  examples  exhibits  one  of  several  points  of  diffSer- 
enoe  between  Thucydides  and  Herodotus.    The  compactness  ^nd 
precision  of  this  mode  of  expression  certainly  appealed  to  Thucy- 
dides.   The  first  example  has  the  rare  word  aKpai^pov^,  which, 
as  Classen  remarks,  has  the  force  of  a  time-limitation.    The  second 
is  a  good  examph  of  Thucydides'  preference  of  abstract  to  con- 
crete expressions.    Krtiger  analyses  the  third  example  thus :  xaXd 
i<rri  rh  /ilWovra  inrkp  &p.    Compactness  of  expression,  of  course, 
is  lost  by  such  a  resoluli.ii.    Classen  notes  tae  .  se  of  the  predioa- 


■«i» 


iSSm- 


I 


The  LimUaiiom  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek.        31 


tive  participle  oUovfUvtov  in  the  eighth  example  to  sharpen  the 
antithesis  to  what  follows.  In  the  next  example,  Widmann 
(Boehme's  Thukydides,  revised  by  Widmann,  Ijeipzig,  1894)  says 
that  we  have  an  abridged  expression  for  Trpo?  roif^  ivavriov<i  atn 
trpo<i  ei  $ov\evofiAvov^,  with  which  he  compares  Thuc.  4,  41,  2: 
CO?  e?  irarpLha  ravrriv  and  6,  50,  4 :  ©9  iraph  ^t\ov?  koI  ev€pyeTa<i 
'A07)vaiov<!.  This  method  of  conceiving  such  an  expression — 
others  like  it  will  be  adduced  later — seems  clumsy  and  quite  un- 
necessary. OKI  gives  the  subjective  attitude,  fiovkevo/ievovi  is 
predicative  in  the  same  way  as  olKovfiivtav,  to  which  reference  has 
been  made. 

Having  concluded  an  examination  of  the  usage  of  the  historians, 
the  writer  will  now  pass  to  a  consideration  of  that  of  the  Orators. 

AntiphoD :  — 

Ant.  6,  33:  ^<»?  /ih  ol>v  fierci,  XP'?^'"^?  '''V^  eXir/Sov 
eyiyvaMTKe  fiov  Karay^evad/ievoii,  rovrqt  Bua-'xy- 
pL^ero  rip  Xoytfi. 

MS  N  omits  the  article.  MS  A  has  it.  Some  of  the  editors 
follow  the  one  MS,  some  follow  the  other.  Graffonder,  De  Cripp- 
siano  et  Oxoniensi  Antiphontis  Dinarchi  Lycurgi  Codicibus,  Berlin, 
1882,  p.  70  ff,  remarks  that  this  is  one  of  those  expressions  which 
the  Greeks  are  wont  to  enrich  with  the  article,  whereas  we  are 
wont  to  do  without  it.  He  compares  Dinarchus  1,  67  :  rlva^  rh^ 
ikirihaK  i^ofuv;  1,  77:  h  rovrtfi  tA?  ikiriha^  Ij^**" »  1»  1^2: 
iv  Tot?  efo)  tA?  iKirihai}  ^^ere.  Bienwald,  De  Crippsiano  et 
Oxonienei,  etc.,  Gorlitz,  1889,  p.  29,  holds  that  the  reading  with, 
or  without,  the  article  is  correct,  but,  inasmuch  as  Antiphon  uses 
the  article  more  frequently  in  the  case  of  iKnrl<i,  he  would  prefer 
to  insert  it.  Cucuel,  Essai  sur  la  langue  et  le  style  de  I'orateur 
Antiphon,  Paris,  1886,  p.  60,  under  "Adjeetif  attribut,"  notes  that 
Antiphon  quite  often  puts  an  adjective  "  en  relief,"  by  detaching  it 
from  the  substantive  to  which  it  belongs,  and  makes  jt  bear  the 
force  of  the  thought.  In  this  way  the  phrase  acquires  much  vigor 
and  conciseness.  He  happily  illustrates  this  conciseness  of  expres- 
sion by  contrasting  the  following  expressions : 

Ant.  6,  28 :  ovk  dXi^d^f  ^v  tj  alrla  t^v  alrirnvrcu  kot   efiov. 
6,  38  :  OVK  oKnOri  t^i/  curlap  ivi^epop  f^u  fJTi&vro. 


32         The  LmiUiiims  of  the  Predicative  Pontion  in  Greek. 

The  article  should  be  retained,  in  the  writer's  judgment,  not 
l,eca«8e  Antiphon  uses  it  more  often  than  he  omits  it  in  connection 
with  ^m'^for  this  has  really  little  weight  in  settling  the  qu«- 
tion-but  because  the  article  is  anaphoric,  pointing  back  to  §  31 
rhv  u^v  iKevdeplav  i\iri<Ta^  oXaeadai,  where  the  word  tKiri^  is 
implied,  and,  at  the  same  time,  as  Cucuel  observe,  the  expression 
thereby  gains  in  vigor.  For  further  examples  of  the  pred^tive 
position  in  connection  with  iKiri,,  of.,  e.  g.,  Thuc.  6,  68,  2: 
Ve^dXnv  rhv  i\frlU  T^9  viKv^s  ^X«v.  In  late  Greek,  Luc. 
Lngaevi  9:  xPV<rroripa,  ix^iP  rh,  i\-,rlBa,.  Cf.  Som- 
nium  2,  Zeuxis  8. 

Andocides :  —  ^ 

Andoc.  1,  88:  oiroaai  iv  hfii>.oKpaTOViiivv  rfi  troXei 
iyivovro. 
Lipsius  (Andocides,  Leipzig,  1888)  brackets  if.    In  this  he 
follows  MS  A  (according  to  Dobson).    There  is  no  gw)d  reason 
for  omitting  the  article.    The  same  expression  is  found  ma  law 
in  Demosthenes  24,  56,  and  is  used  by  Demosthenes  in  24,  76, 
where  Kennedy  misses  the  point  by  rendering  it « in  a  democratioal 
state  "     It  is  rightly  interpreted  by  Hickie,  "  when  the  city  was 
under  democratic  government,"  and  by  Marohant,  "in  the  time 
of  the  democracy."     Dobree,  Adven»ria  Cntica,  vol.  1,  p.  325, 
oomimres  iu  ^i^Kparovy^ivv  rv  ^^X«  of  Dem.  24,  66  with  Sv/^- 
.parovMur,^  r^v  '^6Xem  of  Dem.  24,  68.    This  compar«on  ^ms 
apt  for  in  the  former  passage  iv  Bvf^KpaTovfievj,  rp  iroXet  and  iiri 
r&l  rpidKovra  are  contrasted  expressions,  while  in  the  latter  passage 
we  have  ^p^KpaTovpAv^'i  t^«  irhX^f^i  and  M  i&vrp^dKovra.    In 
other  words— with  no  intention  of  applying  mathematics  to  lan- 
g„age-^v  BvpoKparovpAvv  rp  7r^X«t  and  Bf,f^KparovpAvv^  t»,9 
ir&Kem  are  practically  equivalent  expressions. 

Lysias:  — 

Ly8.X2,97:  oi  ph^  iv  iroXep-itf  t^  trarpiSi  tov9  iratSai 

/eoToXtwovre?.  ^ 

Pseado-Lys.  2,  49:  ^o^^p^oi  fi  eit  lpi?/*ov  t^v  x»P«»' 
ipfitihMV. 
The  force  of  the  predicative  adjective  ttoXcm^.  which  is  in  keep- 
ing with  the  vigorous  utterance  of  Lysias  at  this  point,  is  height- 


in  Greek. 

i  judgment,  not 
I  it  in  connection 
lettling  the  ques- 
ng  back  to  §  31 
he  word  iKirlt  is 
»,  the  expression 
F  the  predicative 
rhuc.  6,  68,  2: 
late  Greek,  Luc. 
:8os.    Cf.  Som- 


kivri  Ty  TToXet 

T^.  In  this  he 
is  no  good  reason 

is  found  in  a  law 
ithenes  in  24,  76, 
<  in  a  democratioal 
irhen  the  city  was 
ant,  "  in  the  time 
a,  vol.  1,  p.  325, 
24,  66  with  ^fM- 

comparison  seems 
;  Tp  iroXet  and  irri 
D  the  latter  passage 
'&v  rptdKovra.  In 
tathematics  to  Ian- 
MKparovfUinii  rrjfi 


rpiSt  TOW?  Trotfio? 
jliov  riiv  xmpav 

^,  which  is  in  keep- 
lis  point,  is  height- 


The  LimUationa  of  the  Predimlwe  PotUion  in  Greek.        33 

ened  by  the  contrast  with  the  words  iv  ^ivp  7^  which  follow.  The 
word  ;^<upa  frequently  has  its  adjective  in  predicative  position. 
Cf.,  e.  g.,  Xen.  Anab,  1,  3,  14:  a>9  Bih  AiXia^  rrj^  y^mpa^ 
dird^ei',  also  4,  1,  8.  Anab.  6,  4,  2 :  a>9  Bih  <l>i\la^  ^  m  St^ 
iroXe filaf!  wopevaotrrai  rfji}  ^cupa?.  Arrian,  Anab.  3,  3,  3 : 
hi  iprf iiov,  oi)  fievroi  Si^  upvBpov  r^v  ^<upa9. 

Isocrates :  — 

Isocr.  1,34:  j^pA  rot?  \6yoi<i  0)9  trepl  dWorptov  tow 

irpdyfiaTos. 
lb.  8,  12:  &(Tirep  iv  dWorpitf,  T'p  woXei  KivBvvevovre^. 
lb.  14,  40:  i^  drei')(^iiTTOv  fikv  t^v  iroXewi  opfiriBevre^. 
lb.  7,  17  :  trap''  ixovrmv  t&v  'KWijvwp  rr}v  ^yefiovlav 

iKafiqv.    (Cf.  also  8,  30.) 
lb.  Ep.  6,  9:  tA?  wap^  ixovrmv  yiyvofi4va<!  ^  tAv  tto/j' 
aKOVTtOV  T&v  7ro\tT&v . 

In  the  first  of  these  examples  Schneider  emends  tow  to  tow  on 
the  ground  that  tow  irpdyfunof  is  not  in  agreement  with  irepl  wv. 
Benseler  approves  of  this  objection.  Schneider  admits,  however, 
that  the  forms  of  the  indefinite  pronoun,  tow  and  rtp,  are  used 
elsewhere  by  Isocrates  mthout  a  substantive.  R.  B.  Ponickau,  De 
Isocratis  Demonicea,  Stendalis,  1889,  p.  31,  refers  to  the  weakness 
in  Schneider's  position  admitted  by  himself,  and  replies  to  his 
objection  by  denying  that  there  is  anything  unusual  in  the  circum- 
stance that  the  singular  irpdyfta  must  be  referred  to  the  plural  &v, 
inasmuch  as  the  neuter  plural  of  pronouns  is  frequently  substituted 
for  one  thing.  That  such  a  collocation  is  not  at  variance  with 
Isocratean  usage,  he  rightly  observes  by  referring  to  Isocr.  8,  12 
(cited  above).  Blass  does  not  depart  from  the  received  text.  The 
current  conception  of  this  construction  is  one  which  the  writer  has 
already  endeavored  to  combat  and  which  he  cannot  accept  here. 
Schneider  gives  it  as  the  usual  explanation  which  he,  otherwise, 
would  have  accepted.  It  is  this:  m  irepl  dWorpiov  rod  irpd- 
yfMTOv  =  wept  TOW  wpd^ftaro^,  tu?  trepl  dWorplov.  He  cites  the 
rule  that  in  comparisons,  when  the  object  compared  is  placed  first, 
the  preposition  is  r^nlarly  omitted  (cf.  Eriiger,  Oriech.  Sprachl., 
68,  8),  as,  e.  g.,  Isocr.  8,  12 :  &<nr€p  iv  dWorpia  (sc.  woXei)  rrj 
viiXei  Kivhvvtvovre<i.    So  Ponickau,  referring  to  Isocr.  8,  12,  says 


34         The  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek, 

it  is  equivalent  to  ^i'  t^  voXei  uxTirep  iv  aWorpia,  To  tliis  method 
of  conceiving  this  constrnction,  tiie  writer  Iibh  two  otijcctions  to 
offer :  first,  it  is  inapplicable  in  certain  canes  yet  to  l)e  cited,  second, 
where  applicable,  it  seems  clumsy  and  unnatural.  Analysis  is  not 
at  all  necessary.  The  predicative  adjective  contains  in  both  ex- 
amples (1,  34  and  8, 12)  the  point  of  the  passage.  It  is,  moreover, 
Isocrates' distinct  purpose  that  the  word  dWoTplov  shall  stand  out 
prominently,  and  this  effect  is  secured  inimitably,  so  far  as  English 
is  concerned,  by  the  predicative  position.  With  the  third  example, 
of.  Diod.  Sic.  1 3,  1 1 4, 1 ;  oiAcetf  iv  aTei,\i<rToi^  rot?  iroXecri, 
cited  by  Green,  in  a  Johns  Hopkins  dissertation,  Diodorus  and  the 
Peloponnesian  War,  Baltimore,  1899,  p,  16. 

A  special  class  of  the  prepositional  ty|)e  is  illustrated  by  such  ex- 
amples as  Isocr.  7,  17:  Trap'  eicoPTtov  Tci>i/ 'EWi^i/aii/.  Abandoning 
for  the  moment  the  plan  of  indicating  consecutively  the  usage  of 
the  individual  Orators,  the  writer  will  attem,>i  to  give  a  general 
view  of  this  class. 

With  these  examples  from  Isocrates,  are  to  be  compared  : 

Dem.  20,  16  :  vtto  t&v  ofiolwv  eKovrmv. 
lb.  38,  28  :  trap"  eKovrwv  eXafiov  t&v  iirtTpoirotv. 
Aeschin.  3,  68  :  Trap"  eKovrwv  t&v  'EWi/voji'  airoXa/Setv. 
Dinarch.  1,  37  :  trap  kKovTwv  koL  ^ovKofievfuv  t&v  'EKXijvotv. 

They  reappear  in  certain  pos(  -ciassical  writers,  e.  g., 
Strabo  5,  3,  2  :  Trap'  ckovto'v  t&v  vrntKowv. 
lb.  5,  2,  3  :  Trap*  exovTuv  eXafiov  'Tafutiotv. 
Dion  Chrysostomus  11,  60 :  Trap'  eKovTwv  t&v  olKeimv, 
Dion  Cassius  37,  3,  6  :  Trap'  eKovToav  t&v  einxtuplotv. 
lb.  63,  2,  6  :  irap^  eicovTav  t&v  avdpdnrmv. 

(Often  with  pronouns,  e.  g.,) 

lb.  41,  35,  1  :  Trop'  i«oi/T09  p-ov. 
lb.  43,  34,  2  :  Si  kKovTutv  re  axn&v. 
lb.  46,  47,  1 :  Trap'  eKovrwv  atrr&v. 
lb.  47,  29,  2  :  Trap'  kKovro^  ainov. 
lb.  63,  17,  3 :  Trap'  kKowL  a^iaiv. 

These  clearly  form  a  group  by  themselves.  The  type  became 
crystallised. 


aafftm^ 


-+  — 


The  Limitationa  qf  the  Predioatm  i  'otitioH  in  •  '•eek. 


To  return  to  the  usage  of  the  individual  OratorH  : 

LycurgUH : — 

Lye.  144:  ov8'  iv  iXevdipip  iSd^ei  t^v  irarplio^  avroin 
Ta<fti}vai  TO  Ka0'  avrov  fiipo^  •irapehancev, 

A  departure  from  the  riMt'ived  text  was  pro|K)Hed  by  Doljrce, 
Adversaria  Critica,  Jk-riin,  1874,  vol.  1,  p.  326,  viz.,  the  insertion 
of  the  article  Iwtween  iXevdeptp  and  iBd<f)ei.  Maetzner,  Lycurgi 
Oratio,  etc.,  Berlin,  1836,  p.  324,  noted  it,  but  did  not  adopt  it. 
Dobree  comparetfi  for  the  article  the  use  of  tiju  in  such  an  expres- 
sion as  evopKOTaTrjv  ttiv  y^rj^ov  iveyKetv  in  Lye.  13,  and  often 
elsewhere.  Exactly  .similar,  in  his  opinion,  is  Dem.  24,  56 :  iv 
BtjfioKparovnevji  Ttf  troKei.  It  is,  however,  not  niert'ly  a  question, 
as  Maetzner  sees,  as  to  whether  the  article  is  rightly  UHed  with 
iha^ot  or  not — Maetzner  cites  Dem.  8,  39  :  t^  t^v  TroXew?  iBd<f>ei ; 
Aesohin.  3, 134  :  irepl  toO  tj}?  iraTpiBo^  iBd<f>ov<! ;  Dinarch.  1,  99  : 
irepl  Tov  iSd<f>ov^  tov  t^s  TroXero?,  etc. — it  is  a  question  as  to 
whether  there  is  any  s|)ecial  point  to  be  gained  by  the  use  of  the 
predicative  position.  H.  Mayer,  Observatipnes  in  Lycurgi  ora- 
toris  usum  dicendi,  Freiburg,  1889,  p.  19ff,  treating  of  Lycurgus's 
use  of  the  article,  says  that  he  does  not  use  it  with  the  former  of 
two  substantives,  in  proof  of  which  he  cites  the  passage  under  dis- 
cussion and  149:  xal  ret^  ylr^<f>ov<i  (f)epe<r6ai  rh<i  fikv  inrip  dva- 
trrdaetof  t^9  irarpihot,  etc.  This  cannot  be  urged  as  an 
argument  here.  In  favor  of  the  predicative  position  it  may  be 
said  that  the  idea  oi  freedom  is  emphasised  in  this  section.  Cf. 
144:  T&v  fikv  xnrhp  t^v  iXevdepiaii  reXevrrfcrdvrwv.  Cf.,  also, 
for  indisputable  cases  of  the  predicative  position  in  post-classical 
Greek, 

Dion  Chrysost.  7,  19:  t^  7^/0  txvv  ^avepunepa,  m  hv  iv 

vyp^  T^  iBd<f>ei  arffiaivoneva. 
Lucian,  Timon  57 :  iv  kXevdipa  TJ7  troKei,  and  elsewhere. 
Demosthenes :  — 

Dem.  4,55:  vvv  S  iw   dhriXoi,^  oict  roi^  dirb  To&rmv 

i/uttn^  yevriao/iivoi^. 
lb.  18,  298  :  air  opdfj^  koI  Bixala^  KaBia^Oopov  1^9  ^*fXV^' 
lb.  21,  30 :  iir  dBijXoi,^  fikv  rol^  dBiK'qa-ovtriv,  dSi;- 

Xo(f  Bk  Tot9  dBiKii<rofiivon. 


36         The  lAmilalioHa  of  the  jhedioative  Pmiiion  in  Greek, 


\ 


Ih.  18,  258  :  fierh  ttoXX^v  t»)v  ivheia<i  trpd<f>r)<i. 

lb.  21,  8  ;  a»¥  vire p  koivov  tov  irpdyfiaTos  Svto^  koI 

•frpO<T€)^tOV    IIKOlO'dTfO, 

fib.  26,  99:  ov  yhp  Bt'fTrov  icad'  ev  vfiwv  ^leaaro^  cuv  iirl 
Kvplovf  Toii^  vofiovi  TTopevfrerai. 

fib.  36,  22  :  ^Kelvov  re  tov  veavivKov  tov  BavelaavTa  i^trd- 
TTjffav  a>?  itri  i\evOipoi<i  rot?  •)(^prifia<ri 
Bavei^ofievoi. 

lb.  36,  8  :  dtro  koiv&v  rStv  xpyifidTav, 

lb.  36,  8  :  ix  koiv&v  t&v  ')(pr)fidTti)v. 

lb.  36,  39:  iK  koiv&v  iX^Tovpyeii  t&v  ■y;}ijfidTa>v, 

lb.  18,  206:  &f  if  Sov\evov<Tj)  Ty  tr o\ <■  t,  <^epet,v  dvdyKij, 

lb.  24,  76  :  iv  BtjfioKpaTovfievjf  ry  TroKei, 

lb.  19,  120:  TTpixi  [hta]  fiefierprifjiivyv  ryv  i)fiipav. 

lb.  20,  16  :  tmb  t&v  ofioitov  eKovrmv. 

lb.  38,  28  :  Trap'  iKOVTwv  SXafiov  t&v  47riTp6Trti)v. 
The  first  and  third  of  the  examples  cited  alMve  from  Demos- 
thenes bear  a  close  resemblance  to  each  other  in  their  structure. 
This  use  of  the  substantivised  participle  was  already  observed  in 
the  usage  of  Thucydidea.  Cf.,  e.  g.,  inrep  koX&v  t&v  (uWhvTwv, 
Trepl  fieyioTwv  Bi)  t&v  Bia<f>ep6vT(ov,  and  Plato,  Apol.  20  e :  «/« 
d^ioxpemv  tov  \eyovTa,  Also  in  late  Greek,  as,  e.  g.,  Lucian  and 
Dion  Cassius.  In  the  fourth  example  the  reading  of  Voemel  is 
followed.  Noting  that  the  article  is  generally  omitted,  he  says : 
"  Ti)v  S,  unde  Scheibius,  Obs.  in  Orr.  Attic,  p.  66  coniecit,  ut  habet 
Laur.  8,  ttoW^?  t^?  i.  e.  iroWi)  ^i/  ^  evSeia  fieO'  rj^  iTpd<fyr)i." 
filass  was  doubtful,  but  read  ttoW^?  iv8eia<!.  The  fiflh  example 
has  occasioned  di£ScuIty  among  interpreters.  Buttmann  says  that 
the  mind  must  conceive  the  construction  bc  follows:  aKovaaTw 
vrrkp  TOV  TrpayiiaTo<i  a>9  Kotvov  6vto<i  =  "  Let  him  now  give  an 
attentive  hearing  to  this  matter,  as  one  of  public  interest."  Fennell 
renders  it  "  considering  that  the  issue  is  of  public  interest."  The 
literal  sense,  he  says,  is  "  considering  that  (he  is  giving  ear  and 
voting)  in  behalf  of  the  case  (it)  being  of  public  interest."  He 
remarks  that  the  di£Eiculty  has  generally  been  passed  over.  The 
principle  referred  to  in  the  case  of  e><t  Trepl  dXKorpiov  tov  irpd- 
yiJMTot  is  inapplicable  here,  koivov  holding  the  predicative  posi- 
tion bears,  as  usual,  the  main  emphasis.     The  copula  6vTo<t  which 


Tlu  Limilatiom  of  the  Predicative  Potitim  in  Greek.        37 


in  here  expreflflcci  i«  more  generally  omitted.  The  Revonth  example 
<h'fif«  Biich  analyHig  an  was  propose*!  in  tiio  case  of  iHocrateH.  In 
tlie  next  example  Dindorf  read  avo  koiv&v  tmv  xp'q^MTwv  6pt(i}v. 
BlasH  omitH  the  copula  with  M88  F  and  Q,  and  finds  further  Hiip- 
port  in  the  similar  use  of  ^«c  koip&v  t&v  xpi}fidTu>v  without  6vTUiv, 
Sandys  and  Paley  (Private  Orations  of  Dem.,  Part  II.,  Cambridge, 
1886)  follow  Dindorf.  On  general  grounds  it  is  Instter  to  omit 
the  copula.  In  the  ease  of  ev  BovKevovajj  rjj  TroXet,  the  context 
with  its  prominent  ideas  containeil  in  the  words  SovXeveiv  and  fier* 
iXevdeplaii  l^fjp  prepares  ns  for  the  emphatic  BovKevovtrf).  The  form 
is  not  unlike  that  of  the  example  4v  BfifioKpaTovfievfi  rfj  iroXei, 
which  has  been  noticed  under  Andocides.  They  are,  however, 
different  mi  thio  reH|)ect,  that  in  the  former  case  ev  has  a  local,  in 
the  latter  a  temporal,  signification.  Drake  has  aptly  compared 
Hdt.  6,  29  :  iv  aveartj/cviri  rfj  X'^PV'  which  has  already  been  noted. 
Compare,  also,  in  post-classical  Greek,  Lucian's  Timon  57  :  iv 
tkevdiptf.  rp  iroXei.  The  same  expression  is  also  found  in  Nigrinus 
1 3  and  Bis  Accusatus  2 1 ,  The  next  example,  irpof}  BiaiMefierp-qfthrfv 
rijp  rtfiepap,  is  a  technical  expression  which  is  explained  by  Har- 
pocration.  The  judicial  day  was  divided  into  three  {mrts,  one 
allotted  to  the  plaintiff',  another  to  the  defendant,  and  the  third  to 
the  judges.  Cf.  also  f  Dem.  53, 17 :  irpixi  rjiiipav  BtafiefieTp'r)fji,ipf)p, 
and  Aesohin.  2, 126  :  ^v  BiafiefieTpTifiipj)  rf/  r\p,epa  KpiPOfiai.  The 
last  two  examples  have  already  been  noticed  under  the  Isocratean 
use  of  participles. 

Aeschines :  — 

Aescbines  3,  266:  fir)  otiv  w?  vtrkp  aWorpia^,  d\V  d>9 

virkp    oiKeLafs   t^s   TroXeo)?   fiovKev' 

ecde. 
lb.  3,  68  :  irap  iKoprwp  ro)!/  'EWi/vo)]/. 
lb.  3,  1 26 :  ip  Biafttfierprifiipij  ry  rj/jkipa. 

Tn  the  first  case,  MSS  e  h  k  1  give  wepl  for  vvip  in  both  places. 
Weidner  adopts  irepC  in  the  former  place.  The  principle  applied 
to  «?  irepl  aWorpiov  rov  wpayfiaToti  is  pointless  here.  The  second 
and  third  examples  have  already  been  noticed. 

Dinarchus :  — 

Dinarchus  1, 37:  irap*  kK6vra>v  Ka\  fiovXofiivap  t&v  ''EXXijvwv. 


38         Tlie  Limitations  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Greek. 

This  example  has  already  found  a  place  under  the  Isocratcan 
use  of  participles. 

The  survey  of  the  usage  of  the  historians  and  the  Orators,  so  far 
as  the  prepositional  type  of  oblique  predication  is  concerned,  has 
now  been  completed.  In  the  course  of  the  exhibit,  special  notice 
was  taken  of  one  particular  type  which  begins  in  the  Orators  and 
survives  in  certain  post-classical  authors.  The  marks  of  its  crys- 
tallization were  quite  evident.  No  small  number  of  the  examples 
which  lie  outside  this  province  can  be  distinguished  by  the  fact 
that  the  substantive  with  which  they  are  connected  is  frequently 
X<'>pO')  irarpi^,  troXi^.  Notice  was  also  taken  of  a  small  group  with 
the  substantivised  participle.  Another  small  group  may  fitly  be 
noticed  here.  This  type  is  preserved  among  certain  of  the  post- 
classical  writers. 

Ant. :  fiera  xpvo"rV'i  t^?  ikviBo^. 

Dem. :  a-rr  opdij^s  xal  BiKaia^  xaSiatjidopov  t^?  V^X^'- 

Plato,  Protag.  357  A :  iv  opOfj  t^  aipetrei. 

Dion  Cass.  37,  11,  2:  fierk.  uKcpaiov  rov  ^povqiiaro^. 

lb.  38,  18,  2 :  air  6p6fi^  Ka\  aSia^dopov  t^s  yvm/itj^. 

lb.  38,  42,  4 :  dir*  opBrj^  koI  dS6\ov  ttj^  yvatfiij^. 

lb.  44,  23,  2 :  ott'  6pdr]<i  t^?  Siapoia^. 

Luc.  Hermot.  6  :  i^  dreXoi/f  t^v  iKiriBoii. 

Between  these  and  certain  examples  of  the  adverbial-dative  type, 
such  as  ikevdipai^  rah  "^i^ot?,  there  seems  to  be  a  close  affinity. 
It  will  be  noticed  that  the  substantives  are  abstracts,  having  to  do 
with  the  inner  life  of  the  person.  In  addition  to  these  groups,  there 
remain  a  comparatively  small  number  of  isolated  cases,  where  a 
special  point  is  made  by  the  use  of  the  predicative  position,  and 
which  have,  therefore,  not  been  perpetuated  as  crystallized  forms. 
It  has  already  been  observed  that  Thucydides  and  Demosthenes 
especially  favor  the  prepositional  type  of  predication  in  its  different 
manifestations.  And,  in  the  case  of  Thucydides,  the  important 
difierenoe  between  his  speeches  «!nd  his  narrative  was  referred  to, 
viz.,  that  he  uses  the  prepositional  type  nine  times  as  oilen  in  hia 
speeches  as  in  his  narrative. 


The  lAmitcUiong  of  the  Predicative  Position  in  Oreek.        39 

With  the  limited  usage  of  the  classical  period,  as  has  been  seea 
in  the  tabulated  statement  and  in  the  former  part  of  this  section, 

stands  in  decided  contrast  the  post- 
PREPOSITIONAL  TYPE.       ,      •     ,        .  j  *  j  u    -^ 

(6)  P08T-CLA88IOAL  Qbekk.    classical  pcriod,  as  represented  by  cer- 
tain of  its  writers,  and,  preeminently, 
Lucian  who,  as  in  the  adv.-dat.  type,  has  been  made  the  basis  of 
this  study.     This  will,  perhaps,  appear  more  clearly  if  the  ex- 
amples are  grouped  as  far  as  possible. 

(1)  It  is  Thucydides  of  the  Attic  writers  who  favored  the  pre^w- 
sition  irpof  in  connection  with  the  type  in  question.  There  are 
thrt«  examples,  conveying  the  idea  of  opposition  or  contrast,  viz. : 

Thuc.  1 ,  36,  1  :  tt/jo?  i<r^yoi»Ta?  tous  €')(dpov<i. 
lb.  1 ,  84,  3 :  irpo<i  eJ>  fiovKevofievovi  Toy?  e')(dpov<{. 
lb.  3,  43,  4  :  Trpo?  avevdvvov  rifv  vfierepav  uKpoatriv. 

There  are,  on  the  other  hand,  eleven  examples  in  Lucian  : 

Lucian,  Piscator  32  :  tt/sov  af^voovvTa^i  rovi  K.Vfia[ov^. 

lb.  Pro  Imag.  16  :  irpoi  ovra  <r<f)oBphv  rijv  Karriyopiav. 

lb.  Toxaris  29 :  Trpov  ovra>  <rK\r)phv  rijv  SCairav. 

lb.  Gallus  29 :  irpb^  dfiavpdv  re  xal  Bi^lrmaav  rr)v  dpvaWlBa. 

lb.  Bis  Accus.  20 :  tt/oo?  einrpoatowov  iioi  ri)v  dvrihiKov. 

lb.  Rhet.  Praec.  23 :  tt/jo?  oirto  woWouv  tous  ipwraii. 

lb.  De  Electro  3 :  wpo?  ivavriov  to  vSeap. 

lb.  De  Domo  29 :  vpo^  ovrw  xaXh^  xai  iroiKiXav  Td<s  tnro- 

0e<rei^. 
lb.  Navigium  9  :  irpo^  amiov^  tov^  inia-ia^. 
lb.  Saturnalia  7  :  Trpov  oCra  TroWijv  r^v  dBiKiav. 
lb.  Demosth.  Encom.  17 :  irpb^  Xafivpdv  rifv  AijfUMr64vov^ 

Bo^av. 

Opposition,  or  contrast,  is  expressed  here,  too,  except  in  the  fourth 
example  where  irp6<i  indicates  the  direction.  The  bulk  of  Lucian, 
it  must  not  be  forgotten,  is  more  than  twice  that  of  Thucydides. 
Still,  every  allowance  made,  one  feels  that  there  has  been  a  wide 
departure  from  Attic  usage.  Omit  the  article  in  a  number  of  these 
examples,  and  there  is  no  real  loss.  This  is  not  true  of  Thucy- 
dides. 


fT! 


40       The  LimUaiions  of  the  Predicalive  Position  t'n  Greek. 

Cf.  also  Dion  Chrysostomus  12, 4 :  vpovifivav  aKwrw^  aMv, 

(09  loiKS,  Trpof  aXvirop 
Tov  Odvarov, 

Plutarch,  1,  60:  Trpo?  avriov  ro  irvevfia. 

(2)  Of  the  examples  cited  above  from  Luoian,  it  will  be  noticed 
that  two  have  the  adjective  iroXvit  in  the  predicative  position. 
There  have  been  observed  only  two  cases  in  the  authors  of  the 
classical  period  who  have  been  examined,  viz., 

Thuc.  8,  38,  3  :  iv  iroWaU  rail!  irplv  fjMxail' 
Demi.  18,  258  :  fierh  iroW^v  t^?  ivBela<i. 
In  the  former  case  the  article  could  not  well  be  omitted,  and, 
with  its  retention,  a  different  sense  would  be  conveyed  by  the 
attributive  position.  The  second  case,  it  will  be  remembered,  is  a 
disputed  one.  Lucian  has  fiAeen  additional  examples  in  which 
7roXv9  holds  the  predicative  position,  e.  g. : 

Lucian,  Timon  13 :  iv  voW^  r^  (tkot^. 

lb.  Charon  11 :  ^«  iraXKov  tov  fid6ov<;. 

lb.  Quom.  hist,  conscr.  1 :  iv  iroXX^  t^  <f>\oyn^. 

lb.  Alexander  39 :  iv  rroW^  t§  irianrp. 

lb.  "         44 :  eirl  iroW&v  t&v  irapovrav. 

lb.  De  Saltatione  40 :  ix  iroW&v  r&v  irapaXekeififiivmv. 
Cf.  also  Demonax  31,  Gallus  19,  Bhet.  Praec.  3,  Hippias  7, 
Advers.  Indoot.  19,  24,  De  Dipsad.  2,  Dial.  Meietr.  14,  2,  De 
Morte  Peregr.  19.    Similar  are  Gallus  15,  Icaromenip.  17,  and 
Apol(^ia  15. 
So  Lucian  uses  0X6709,  but  not  frequently. 

Lucian,  Anacharsis  11 :  ^*  0X1701/  t&v  jMpT^pmv. 
lb.  Hermot.  58  :  air  oKiyov  tov  yev/MTo^. 

With  the  former  of  these  examples,  cf.  Xen.  Hell.  6,  4,  1 :  iir^ 
oXlytov  fjMi  SoKov<n  /lapTvpmv.  The  latter  example  is  inter- 
esting in  another  way,  for,  earlier  in  the  same  chapter,  we  have 
the  attributive  position  with  the  article :  a'ir6  ye  tov  oKlyov  ixelvov 
yevfMTo^,  where  the  article  is  plainly  anaphoric,  strengthened,  it  is 
true,  by  the  demonstrative  iKeivo^.  But,  in  this  example,  the 
article  has  no  such  justification.  If  it  is  omitted,  the  sense  is  con- 
veyed equally  as  well.     In  other  words,  Ludan  is  here  giving 


Greek. 


The  LimUaiioiiu  of  the  Predieaiive  Position  in  Oreek.        41 


iXthro)^  avrbv, 
)09   aXvirov 

vitt  be  noticed 
itive  position, 
luthors  of  the 


omitted,  and, 
veyed  by  the 
nembered,  is  a 
pies  in  which 


1^. 

.ei/i/iipmv. 

3,  Hippias  7, 
etr.  14,  2,  De 
lenip.  17,  and 


I.  6,  4,  1 :  iv 
imple  is  inter- 
tpter,  we  have 
o\/7ov  iicelvov 
ingthened,  it  is 
example,  the 
e  sense  is  con- 
is  here  giving 


predicative  expression  to  what  is  really  an  attributive  relation. 
Post-classical  examples  to  which  no  such  objection  can  be  made 
are: 

Dion  Chrysostomos  11,  1 :  fiavffdvovai  /tiv  ^0719  idp  rt  xal 

fidOwn,  trap*  oXiyav  r&v  el- 
Bora  v,  i^avar&vrai  8i  rdxurra 
viro  iroW&v  r&v  ovk  elBo- 
rwv, 
Dion  Cassius  66.  17,  2:  ravra  yhp   airo  iroW&v  r&v 

-^ri^icdivTav  v<f>i<riv  6  A6yot>- 
0T09  iBi^aro. 

IJMKpo^  is  similarly  used  by  Lucian. 

Lucian  Deor.  Dial.  10,  2  :  \nro  fuiKp^  r^  ^6^. 
lb.  De  Merc.  Conduct.  37  :  htk  fjMKpov  toO  xpovov. 
lb.  Jupp.  Confut.  7  :  inrb  /laKp^  r^  \lp<p. 
lb.  Navigium  44 :  ip  fuiKp^  r^  fii<p. 

With  the  foregoing  examples  may  be  compared  the  following 
from  Aelian,  given  by  Sohmid,  Attidsmus,  vol.  3,  p.  63. 

Aelian  N  A  34,  6 :  ip  /unep^  t^  xP^^V' 

lb.  "     36,  3 :  Korh  iroXX^i'  t^i'  elp^pijp. 

lb.  "     47,  24 :  iic  iroWov  roG  aWipo^  icaX  v^Xov. 

lb.  "  112,  30 :  icark  iroXkhp  rijp  <rrrovB^p, 

(3)  Several  of  the  examples  with  the  predicative  position  in 
Lucian  are  introduced  by  the  preposition  inro  with  the  dat.  Some 
of  these  occur  in  the  groups  already  given.  The  following  may 
also  be  noted : 

Lucian,  De  Merc.  Conduct.  23:  irirh  p^aKo^ptp  r^  KijpvKt. 

lb.  Herodotus  6 :  tnrb  pv/ufnaya^^  r^  /Soo-tXet. 

lb.  Quom.  hist,  consor.  2 :  tnrh  fUf  t^  6p/i§  (cf.  Anaoh.  26.) 

lb.  Phalaris  post.  8 :  vrrh  yeupy^  r^  de^. 

lb.  FhilopsMides  32 :  {nrb  irviep§  r§  fidaet, 

lb.  Psendolog.  17 :  ivi  wovt/p^  r^  irp^^  koI  Bva^ft^ 

KXtiBovla/jLaTt. 
lb.  Navigium  11 :  inch  Xafi/irp^  rp  BtfBL 
No  instance  of  vwi  with  the  dat.  in  this  construction  has  been 
found  in  the  writers  of  the  classical  period. 


42       The  Limitationa  of  the  PreduxUive  PoaUUm  in  Greek. 

(4)  The  preposition  most  commonly  employed  in  this  type,  alike 
in  classical  and  post-classical  Greek,  is  iv.  In  addition  to  the  ex- 
amples cited  in  other  connections,  may  be  noted  : 

Lucian,  Timon  13 :  iv  xo^i'V  ^  o-thrip^  r^  daXdfufi. 

lb.  De  Merc.  Cond.  22 :  iv  afivBp^  t^  ^wri  (cf.  Alex.  17). 

lb.  Apologia  8  :  iv  ou^o)?  a/jL<t>i\a<f>ei  rf/  virodiaei. 

lb.  Quom.  hist,  conscr.  4 :  iv  ojHro)  7ro\v^a>vqi  r^  xaiptp. 

(6)  The  preposition  iiri  with  the  dat.  is  quite  common.  Demos- 
thenes is  the  only  classical  author  who  makes  use  of  it  in  prose. 

Cf.  Lucian,  Hermot.  74 :  itrX  aaOpoh  roit  defieXioK  tovtok. 
lb.  Quom.  hist,  conscr.  35  :  e<^'  ovt©  fieydXra  xal  ^^aXcTr^J  to5 

•trpdyfiari, 
lb.  Demonax  8 :  iir  6\,iyoxpovtoi<!  rot?  BoKovaiv  dyadoi^. 
lb.  Toxaris  36:  iirl  irpoBijXtf)  r^  /uxpov  HoTcpov  \v6^- 

atadai. 
lb.  Toxaris  41 :  eVl  rv(^\^  t^  AavBdfiiBi. 
lb.  Jupp.  Trag.  31 :  e^'  out©  (rtKJ>€i  koI  irpoh'qXtfi  r^  'xprja-f/,^, 
lb.  Rhet.  Praec.  24:  iirl  slriX^  t^J  rpi^eadai. 
lb.  Pseudolog.  26  :  iwl  weTrpayfievq)  rjSt)  rtp  epytfi. 
lb.  De  Domo  1 :  iirX  irpohrfXtfi  rrj  v6<rq). 
lb.  Epist.  Saturn.  36 :  iirl  Kareayori  t^  d/i^opec. 

Especially  to  be  noticed,  in  the  foregoing  list,  are  the  two  occur- 
rences of  the  articular  infinitive  with  the  adjective  in  the  predica- 
tive position.  There  is  no  similar  occurrence  in  classical  Qreek 
within  the  range  of  authors  examined. 

(6)  Finally  may  be  noted  a  small  prepositional  group  which  is 
closely  related  to  the  adverbial-dative  group  in  the  character  of  the 
substantives  which  are  used. 

Lucian,  Nigrinus  11 :  diro  yv/ivov  .  .  .  tov/aov  irpoavt'irov. 
lb.  Toxaris  19 :  dir6  y^iXrj<!  tjJs  xepaia^. 
lb.  Toxaris  60 :  dirb  yvfivf)^  t^s  xe^X^f. 

The  presence  of  the  possessive  is  to  be  noticed  in  the  first  of 
these  examples.  The  construction  is  usually  not  so  transparent  as 
it  is  here. . 

This  concludes  the  survey  of  post-classical  Greek,  especially  as 
seen  in  the  pages  of  Lucian,  who  fiurly  revels  in  this  oonstruotion. 


The  lAmitaiwna  of  the  Predicative  PoaUion  in  Greek.       43 

The  words  of  I.  Guttentag,  De  subdito  qui  inter  Lucianeos  l^i 
Bolet  dialogo  Toxaride,  Berlin,  1860,  p.  44,  in  this  connection,  are 
substantially  well-founded :  "  Proprium  hoc  quoque  Luciani  est, 
quod  multo  frequentius  quam  alii  scriptores  artioulum  inter  adiec- 
tivum  et  substantivum  ponit,  et  ita  quidem,  ut  articulus  nonnum- 
quam  adiectivum  anteoedere,  multo  saepius  integra  sententia  omitti 
possit.  Oratio  tamen  degantior  interdura  est,  si  articulus  adiec- 
tivum sequitur,  quara  si  praeponitur,  quaesUa  saepe  tnagia  videtur, 
si  articulus  usurpatur,  quam  si  omittitur." 

After  noting  the  views  current  in  antiquity  among  the  gram- 
marians with  reference  to  the  nature  of  the  Greek  article,  and 

showing   how    the   article   gradually 
CONCLUSION.  developed  from  the  demonstrative  pro- 

noun, the  writer  entered  upon  a  con- 
sideration of  the  subject  of  oblique  predication,  in  which  was 
included  the  use  of  adjective  and  participle  alike.  The  range  of 
this  construction  was  given  for  the  Attic  Orators  and  Thucydides, 
and  a  more  especial  study  was  made  of  two  types  which  were 
denominated  the  adverbial-dative  and  the  prepositional.  The  lim- 
itations in  the  use  of  these  two  types  on  the  part  of  the  classical 
authors  were  observed,  and  by  a  comparison  with  post-classical 
authors,  more  especially  Lucian,  the  deviations  from  the  norm  of 
Attic  usage  were  indicated.  The  origin  of  the  comitative,  or  sooi- 
ative,  dative  was  briefly  considered,  and  it  was  shown  that  the  dat. 
type  is  mainly  concerned  with  the  body  and  its  parts,  any  expan- 
sions being  due  to  the  workings  of  the  principle  of  analogy.  The 
prepositional  type  was  seen  to  possess  a  higher  character  than  the 
adv.-dat.  type,  and,  as  a  consequence,  was  used,  when  impressive- 
ness  was  sought,  by  Thucydides,  in  particular,  of  the  historians, 
with  the  important  qualification  that  it  is  mainly  restricted  to  his 
speeches,  and  for  this  very  reason,  and  by  Demosthenes  of  the 
Orators.  Many  of  these  expressions,  as  was  shown,  crystallised 
and  were  imitated  by  certain  post-classical  writers.  The  home  of 
oblique  predication  in  general,  and  of  the  prepositional  type  in 
particular,  was  seen  to  be  in  oratory  which  seeks  to  be  vigorous, 
concise,  and  impressive — ^in  fine,  in  Epideiotio  Oratory. 


LIFE. 

Alfred  William  Milden  was  born  in  Whitevale,  Ontario,  on  March 
11,  1868.  His  preliminary  education  was  received  in  the  Public 
School  and  the  High  School  of  Cornwall,  Ontario.  He  matriculated 
at  the  University  of  Toronto  in  the  year  1884,  and,  four  years  later, 
graduated  with  the  degree  of  B.  A.  with  classical  honors.  For  a  period 
of  nearly  eight  years,  he  was  engaged  in  the  teaching  of  classics, 
mainly  in  the  Collegiate  Institute  of  Barrie,  Ontario.  In  the  fall  of 
1896  he  entered  the  Johns  Hopkins  University  as  a  post-graduate 
student  in  Greek,  Latin,  and  Sanskrit.  At  the  end  of  his  second 
year  he  was  appointed  Fellow  in  Greek ;  and  at  the  end  of  his  third 
year,  in  June,  1899,  he  received  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy. 
During  the  year  1899-1900  he  has  been  Fellow  by  Courtesy.  He  has 
attended  the  lectures  of  Professors  Gildersleeve,  Warren,  Bloomfield, 
Smith,  and  Miller,  to  all  of  whom  he  is  indebted. 

He  would  especially  mention  Professor  Gildersleeve  and  Professor 
Miller,  to  the  former  of  whom,  in  common  with  his  many  students, 
he  must  express  the  strong  sense  of  his  indebtedness  for  inspiration, 
guidance,  and  encouragement  in  the  prosecution  of  his  studies. 


".*ai* 


